MAKE FREE

BY CORY DOCTOROW

Shortcut to Omniscience

You might not be able to correct the Wikipedia date for a famous battle that you’re a worldwide expert on, by asserting that you know it is incorrect. But give an interview to The New York Times about how screwed-up Wikipedia is and cite the true date, and you can go back to the erroneous entry and correct it without argument, by citing the fact as published in The New York Times.

This seems completely backward and absurd at first, but remember: Wikipedia is a collection of facts about facts. It’s incredibly hard for the whole world of Wikipedians to look up your credentials and decide that you know what you’re talking about; however, it’s simple for the editorial world to look at The New York Times and see what they’ve reported. And since there’s consensus that the Times is a notable source (notwithstanding Jason Blair and other scandals), the edit can now stand.

Being a maker in a networked society often involves moving processes from giant factories into humble garage workshops, thanks to cheap, flexible tools, readily available materials, and easy knowledge-sharing. But remember: the way you make depends as much on how you’re organized as on what you want to make.

When you run up against the limits of what you can do in your garage, ask yourself: Is the way I’m doing this inherent to what I’m doing? Have I imported some 20th-century organizational style that’s holding me back?

You never know: there may just be more than one way to skin an encyclopedia.

Talk to anyone who’s tried to edit a controversial Wikipedia article and chances are you’ll be treated to an earful of complaint. Wikipedia’s legion of committed editors tirelessly revert the changes wrought by newbies within minutes, often with flat declarations of the ineligibility of the new material for the online encyclopedia. This proves frustrating for skilled contributors who want to correct errors.

To understand what’s going on here, you need to appreciate what makes Wikipedia possible. Prior to Wikipedia’s launch in 2001, the consensus was that millions of amateurs would never be able to write an encyclopedia together. Encyclopedias require two things: control and expertise, and the Wikipedia project made very little room for either.

The thing is, expertise and control are expensive. They’re the kind of thing a publisher can raise and charge money for, but they’re not readily available to informal groups of amateurs. Wikipedia’s success hinged on figuring out how to get around this handicap, and the solution was so clever — and frustrating — that most people miss it altogether.

Here’s the thing about expertise: it’s hard to define. It may be possible for a small group of relatively homogenous people to agree on who is and isn’t an expert, but getting millions of people to do so is practically impossible. The Encyclopaedia Britannica uses a learned editorial board to decide who will write its entries and who will review them.

Wikipedia turns this on its head by saying, essentially, “Anyone can write our entries, but those entries should consist of material cited from reliable sources.” While the Britannica says, “These facts are true,” Wikipedia says, “It is true that these facts were reported by these sources.” The Britannica contains facts. Wikipedia contains facts about facts.

And this is Wikipedia’s secret weapon and its greatest weakness. The debate over which sources are notable is a lot more manageable than the debate about which facts are true (though the former is nevertheless difficult and it consumes many Wikipedian-hours). Moving to a tractable debate about sources makes it possible for millions of people to collaborate on writing the encyclopedia.

But this shortcut also creates endless frustration.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica contains facts. Wikipedia contains facts about facts. This is Wikipedia’s secret weapon and its greatest weakness.

Cory Doctorow lives in London, writes science fiction novels, co-edits Boing Boing, and fights for digital freedom.

14 Make: Volume 20