A Question for Wikipedia: Can I Trust You?

Got a question? The Internet will almost always have an answer. All it takes is a quick search request and a brief scan through the results. Question answered. Problem solved. But wait a sec--Was the answer you got the right answer? Who provided the information? Where did it come from?

This issue of the veracity of online information has been gaining a lot of attention lately, especially as the world rushes to embrace Wikipedia, a remarkable user-created online encyclopedia that in just five years has amassed more than one million articles and is available in 10 languages. It gets 14,000 hits per second and is the 17th most popular site on the Internet.

Two weeks ago, the New Yorker published a fascinating article by Stacy Schiff that described the Wikipedia phenomenon it in a historical context, and wrestled with the most important issue that this amazing site raises: If anybody can contribute to Wikipedia without editorial supervision, how can the information be trusted?

The short answer is that the fanatical community that builds and supports Wikipedia also polices it. Just as anyone can add or edit an entry, anyone can publicly call an entry into question, demanding an edit or even a retraction. That's extremely important because Wikipedia strives for a completely neutral voice just like that of the Encyclopedia Britannica (which, by the way, scoffs a bit at Wikipedia in the New Yorker article but must be quaking in its British boots).

In order to protect that neutral voice and avoid lies, partisan postings, and character assassinations, Wikipedia reserves the right to slam the door shut when things get too controversial. Take a look at the entry for George W. Bush, for example, and you'll be greeted with this proviso: "Because of recent vandalism or other disruption, editing of this article by anonymous or newly registered users is disabled." Well alrighty, then.

This issue first came to light last fall when noted journalist and writer John Seigenthaler, Sr. found that his Wikipedia entry accused him of being somehow involved in the plots to kill both John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy. His reaction: "Huh?" It turns out that that the whole thing was a cruel hoax, and to its credit, Wikipedia now even has an entry on how the controversy erupted. Since then, Wikipedia has been on high alert for cranks, pranks, and jokesters.

My opinion: Wikipedia will survive and thrive. It's simply too useful and too popular to disappear. The vast majority of information available is just fine, and it's incredibly convenient for finding those little factoids that you need quickly. My advice: for important facts that you have to get right, cross-reference your research with a few sources. Why not even try Yahoo! Answers, the most egalitarian research tool I can think of?