User:Zir/Ariel

Wikipedia article from Ariel
21.08.07 week 34

We can all be editors in the space that is Wikipedia
There has long been an unofficial health warning attached to the free online information site compiled by users for users. But, despite recent revelations of ‘interference’, Chris Catchpole says Wikipedians at the BBC think it’s better to help shape a powerful tool rather than ignore it.

According to a new website, people in prominent organisations like the CIA and the Vatican have been on to Wikipedia to change entries that they think are inaccurate or perhaps unfavourable. The website Wiki-scanner that made these revelations has developed software that can track an entry back to a company’s range of computers. It’s also saying there have been around 7000 changes made to Wikipedia entries from BBC email addresses.

Some of these have been directly related to the BBC, correcting what the writers consider to be inaccurate or misleading criticisms.

There have been other non-related interventions. Back in January 2005, someone using a BBC email was responsible for the scurrilous entry about President George Bush whose middle name of Walker was changed to wanker. Of course, the beauty of Wikipedia, the self-styled people’s encyclopedia, is that not only can anyone post an entry or an amendment but the history of those changes can now be viewed online.

Last week’s stories about the CIA amending entries relating to the Iranian president refreshes the questions of how reliable Wikipedia is as a source of information and what the BBC’s relationship with the site should be – either on an official or an individual basis.

‘Made it accurate’
Can Wikipedia be taken seriously, or are the well intentioned motives of its originators being subverted by mischief makers, the heavy hand of officialdom or the agents of corporations who would prefer to offer a more regulated version of events to the world?

Nick Reynolds, one of the BBC ‘Wikipedians’ who has edited numerous entries, defends the principle of change, citing an entry on BBC impartiality in which editorial opinions from The Evening Standard were being presented as findings from the recent Bridcut report.

‘The press quotes turning up on Wikipedia did not reflect what was actually in the impartiality report,’ he says. ‘So I changed it to make it accurate. Of course as it’s Wikipedia, if people disagree they can go and re-edit.’

Set up in 2001, Wikipedia has become one of the most popular sites on the web. It presents itself as a free encyclopedia where anyone can provide information or edits on nearly 8m entries in more than 253 languages. The English tally is now approaching 2m articles and there are even 83 items in Klingon. Type in a search on Google and the Wikipedia entry will generally come up near the top of the list, making it a universal facility.

Although all articles are subject to editorial guidelines and the scrutiny of its 75,000 active contributors, Wikipedia faces continual questions about reliability, vulnerability and issues of political and corporate interference.

As such, BBC staff are advised to be rigorous about establishing the origins of information presented on the site. Anthony Worrall from editorial policy strongly advises against using Wikipedia as a reputable or single source for research but says it can be a good starting point on the route to more reliable sources. ‘As a way of gathering information Wikipedia is often useful but it should never be used in the same way as say, the Encyclopaedia Britannica.’

Reynolds, senior advisor for music interactive, accepts this advice but points to different ways in which the BBC can benefit by interacting with Wikipedia users. Think of it as another form of social media and user generated content, he says. ‘As a way of learning how the internet works editing Wikipedia is a useful tool and relatively easy to use.’

In July, links on Wikipedia were the third highest providers of traffic to bbc.co.uk with more than 1m web users arriving at BBC online from the site.

Matthew Shorter, A&M’s interactive editor, believes the BBC should be more involved with the site. ‘Wikipedia is a natural partner for the BBC. It is creating knowledge for the public good, which is what the BBC is also about.’

Foolish to duplicate
The website accompanying the recent Seven Ages of Rock series on BBC Two used Wikipedia to provide short biographies for the artists featured. ‘There are thousands of fans continually checking and re-editing these pages and as such they are extremely reliable,’ explains Shorter. ‘It would be foolish spending the time to write them ourselves or to spend licence fee money commissioning our own versions when something as good as this already exists,’ he says.

BBC music online is currently working with the site to integrate its extensive artist database so that when changes are made to Wikipedia the BBC page is automatically updated at the same time. This, says Shorter, will not only extend the pool of information but will also help teach the public more about how the internet is created and maintained.

‘We recognise this might not be 100 percent accurate but we also recognise the audience is intelligent enough to understand the process,’ he says. Users with doubts about an entry would be prompted via the BBC page to become involved in the editing process which in turn would increase their understanding of the internet as a whole.

After news online ran the story about the CIA editing Wikipedia, readers were quick to point out the number of edits made from BBC email accounts. This prompted a response from Pete Clifton, head of interactive news, who wrote on his blog: ‘Words like glass, house and stones spring to mind because we weren’t exactly sharp about the other obvious question… What about people inside the BBC?’

He said the ‘vast majority’ of edits made from within the BBC came from conscientious people and that the actions of a few irresponsible individuals should not discourage BBC staff from engaging with the site.

‘For every dodgy one there are many, many more uncontroversial edits where people at the BBC have added information or changed a detail in good faith,’ he wrote. ‘People from the BBC interacting with social networking sites seems like an entirely proper thing. We are only part of the web after all, and we should be willing to freely link off to other places and engage intelligently with some of them.’

It’s in the top ten
With regard to gathering information, Wikipedia appears to work best by providing quick overviews on a vast range of politically neutral subjects, such as the minutiae of television episodes or biographies of prominent film stars. However, as with much web-based content, those searching for more serious articles should treat the information that comes up on screen with caution and a sceptical eye.

That’s not to say the BBC should stand back from one of the top ten most visited sites on the web, especially given the volume of online traffic Wikipedia currently generates. As Clifton says, when staff do participate, they should remember the responsibility that goes with a BBC email address.

‘One thing is clear,’ he says. ‘When BBC staff choose to get involved, they should behave well and not in a way that flies in the face of BBC values or risks bringing the BBC into disrepute.’

So no more poor taste George Bush jokes, thank you.