News Analysis: Wikiepedia has some quality problems, but they also have a great opportunity to improve their review process and maybe even partner with established encyclopedias.Wikipedia.org is in trouble. Last week, The Register reported that the "open source" encyclopedia has come under fire.
Former co-founder Larry Sanger wrote a scathing criticism about credibility and unreliable editing.
Then, founder Jimmy Wales admitted to some "embarrassing" entries and urged the troops to action.
Wales responded directly via e-mail to Sanger's criticism, claiming that the good far outweighs any minor errors.
Still, as Wikipedia's user-generated content grows exponentially, the site is coming under fire from prominent critics who wonder about its quality, research value and long-term credibility.
Wikipedia tests limits of user-generated content. Click here to read more.
Worse, the content is spreading through syndication and re-purposing.
What's more, Wikipedia is also a prime target for splogging, the practice of inserting false entries into a wiki or blog to drive traffic.
Mike Langberg from the Mercury News summarized the criticism, arguing for more professional content on the Web.
How is Wikipedia coping with these problems, and what can they do to correct themselves?
Problem: Inaccurate Entries. Solution: Stricter Community Controls
Proponents of established encyclopedias argue that many Wikipedia entries, created by thousands of well-meaning contributors, are not quite accurate.
"Wikipedia is shot with error and confusion because it places no value on knowledge or skill," says Bob McHenry, a former Britannica.com editor and a Wikipedia critic.
"Its highest virtue is participation, rather like those school games designed to include everyone by suppressing athleticism."
Another competitor to Wikipedia.org, Microsoft's Encarta.com, argues that thorough research by approved experts is a critical method for reducing errors.
"A devoted team of editors ensures every article in Encarta is trustworthy, with an emphasis on fact-checking, consistency, readability and objectivity," says Gary Alt, the Encarta.com editorial director.
The Microsoft encyclopedia recently introduced an "Article Editor" feature whereby any reader can suggest edits, although not until an approved researcher has fact-checked the suggestion.
Of course, neither Encarta.com nor Britannica.com share Wikipedia's commitment to free access to information, and they are unable to act quickly when new terms are coined.
Jimmy Wales, one of Wikipedia's founders, argues that the community itself will develop the best methods of quality control.
"It is our goal to provide a freely-licensed high quality encyclopedia to every single person on the planet in their own language," says Wales.
"Our highest value is quality in the encyclopedia. The main value to quality should be obvious: our work is extremely high quality because that is what both readers and community members demand."
If that is the case, Wikipedia authors should be judged more strenuously on the quality of their work. Slashdot's meta-moderation may provide a useful guide here.
Unfortunately, Slashdot's moderation method relies on the fairness of a comment, not whether that comment is factually correct.
Problem: Sharing Articles. Solution: Versioning
While sharing information is one of the Internet's primary benefits, the ease with which Wikipedia's erroneous entries populate the Web can be a problem.
"Wikipedia beats the Encyclopedia Britannica whenever there are characteristics of cost [and] shareability between users, because it's illegal to share most Britannica content" says Clay Shirky, who has defended Wikipedia.org on his blog at shirky.com.
And yet that shareability seems to be undermining the site's success.
Its database is quickly approaching 1 million entries, and even the superman-like abilities of a vast online collaborative effort has trouble weeding out bad writing and wrongly stated viewpoints.
Wikipedia is so popular that entries often turn up as the top ranked site in Google.com search results. What's more, Wikipedia just recently announced a partnership with Answers.com to syndicate Wikipedia look-ups.
In each of these examples, errors can spread like a virus and will be difficult to fix.
"Few people can identify errors well without training," adds Tom Panelas, a Britannica.com spokesperson.
"Even people broadly familiar with a subject will miss many things. It requires certain skeptical habits of mind that are not found broadly in the population, even among intelligent, well-educated people—which, let us not fail to point out—some portion of Wikipedia's creators are not.
A trained, experienced editor who has spent years honing her ability to spot something questionable will often see things that even smart amateurs will miss," said Panelas.
Click here to read about the challenges that loom for new content delivery platforms.
Wikipedia.org editors are moving quickly to fix broken entries. One critical issue, however, has to do with "commons-based peer production."
Often, collaborators have their own member ranking in mind when they continually edit Wikipedia.org entries, hoping to rise through the ranks.
"One of the most interesting plans is to introduce a new system whereby we can flag particular versions of particular articles as 'good enough'—in some precise sense to be determined by the community," adds Wales.
"These 'stable' versions could then be more confidently used in print publications."
In the meantime, the value of free online content seems to lie in drafting amateur and expert opinion on new, unknown topics.
Given that obvious boon to shared knowledge, and given the established credibility and utility of encyclopedias, perhaps both parties should find a way to work together instead of shouting at each other across the Web.
Online Media 
