Wikipedia, Google, Israel And Free Speech
By
Joel Leyden Jerusalem-----January 10......If you were seeking information about anything on the Net where would you go? For most people the most natural task would be to punch in some key words into Google Web or Google News. But now something very new and exciting is taking shape for those seeking answers to life's many questions. It's called Wikipedia. Wikipedia or Wiki as many refer to it as is a free encyclopedia on the Internet. The largest of it's kind which has gathered such potency that when performing a Google search today on almost any popular topic, a Wikipedia link will most likely appear on the first page. Wiki has an abundance of articles on far more subjects in many more languages than Encyclopedia Britannica or any other encyclopedia. But can you trust it? You see, the “wiki” part of the name is a tech term, meaning a web site that allows lots of people to contribute: creating, changing, or erasing information. Not all of these people who edit Wikipedia are professional editors nor are they thoroughly objective and balanced in their editing and research skills. I first heard of Wikipedia about a year ago. The name threw me off and I never took the time to give it a test ride. But in the last few days, as Israel holds its breath over the health of Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, I did a search for "ariel sharon" on Google. The Wikipedia bio for Sharon came up with a strong rank of number two. So I clicked and entered. The first thing I viewed was a warning that Sharon's page had been "vandalized" and that users were now restricted from editing the page. As one who has worked in the US and Israel as a journalist, media consultant and Internet geek for many years I was not surprised. But I was still very impressed that Wikipedia had such a strong ranking on Google. In fact, Alexa has Wikipedia ranked as the 31st Web site on the Net. Will Wikipedia replace Google? The answer is no. Google's robots are the best money can buy and getting better every day. But Wikipedia could become a number two. That all depends on how the human touch at Wikipedia is applied. In the last two years there have been several discoveries of wrong or hugely biased articles in Wikipedia. During the 2004 election there were partisans creating or rewriting articles about the candidates and the issues, sometimes back-and-forth-and-back-again. In 2005, as a supposed “joke”, became a widely cited incident, with John Seigenthaler, Sr., a prominent journalist, publisher, and political figure, reacting with justifiable horror when he learned that his bio entry in Wikipedia falsely implicated him in the assassination of Robert Kennedy. It remained that way for four months. But Wikipedia has also won an endorsement recently from a prominent source. An analysis conducted by the journal Nature showed that, on scientific topics, an average Wikipedia article had about four "inaccuracies" (factual errors, critical omissions, or misleading statements), compared with about three inaccuracies per article in the Encyclopedia Britannica. So
now I was intrigued to see how Wikipedia would respond to a page on the Israel
News Agency and on myself. Was Wikipedia about to spit in the face of free speech? Ignore an Israel Government Press Office accredited news organization which has reached millions on the Internet? Delete the first, on-line news source from Israel (established in 1995) which embraces and defends every basic principle of democracy. That has been on the front line confronting Islamic Jihad (holy war) electronic terrorism wherever it may appear on the Net and Islamic suicide bombings on the ground? It
took a while for me to navigate to see who "nominated by deletion" and
the reasons for it. One Wiki administrator said that he thought it was a vanity
site or an SEO - search engine optimizer at work. He later apologized. But please
don't apologize after you have publicly knifed someone. It's bad for you, it's
bad for me. Just do your research before you hit the Wikipedia delete button. Instinct told me that this was just yet another case on Wikipedia of bias and hate spilling in from Jenin, Syria, Iran or Saudi Arabia against anything which is Israel. I carefully checked out the guidelines for inclusion to Wikipedia. The debate which began on how "notable" the Israel News Agency evaporated in my mind once I read the Wikiepdia guidelines for what is "notable" as a writer or author. "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more," are the words written on the Wikipedia site for inclusion. The Israel News Agency has at present 66,000 Google hits. So where is the argument?
I called Wikipedia and spoke with senior management. They sounded very friendly and receptive to my call. I was told not to take it personally and that it was "still early" to see whether or not the Israel News Agency (INA) was to be deleted. I pointed out the vandalism on the Sharon page. There was silence. Rather, I would call it embarrassment. Still, the Wikipedia executive admitted that the INA Alexa ranking was very solid and I should not worry. I did not want to quote his site's own policy regarding circulation over 5,000. I was prepared to see how the debate would go. And as debates go someone did quote the Wikipedia policy of inclusion if one touches the hearts and minds over the magical 5,000 point. This
evening I received a very friendly, sincere and supportive letter from Wikipedia. I believe I crossed a red line by writing my own bio. But this was part of my learning curve with Wikipedia. Now it will be interesting to see if Wiki abides by their other guidelines regarding an author reaching over 5,000 people. And if so, I invite their editors to edit me. I could use a good copy desk! Wikipedia, which is now five years old, can either either reach true greatness or fall by the side with Alta Vista and Ask Jeeves. Rogers Cadenhead a computer book author and web publisher had the same experience as I. He wrote: "Wikipedia runs on a process that should never work -- any idiot can create or edit a page, and volunteer contributors act as white blood cells, attacking foreign invaders such as spam, factual errors, biased writing, and self-glorifying authors. Yet work it does. As Trend points out, Wikipedia's one of the 100 most-visited sites on the web, according to Alexa, steamrolling such esteemed competition as the Encyclopedia Britannica." As Wikipedia picks up prestige, founder Jimmy Wales and employed staff must decide who is to judge credibility at Wikipedia. Wiki describes itself as follows: Wikipedia is a multilingual Web-based free-content encyclopedia. Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers, allowing articles to be changed by anyone with access to a web browser. The project began on January 15, 2001. Wikipedia has more than 3,100,000 articles, including more than 910,000 in the English-language version; and as of January 2006 it has more than 770,000 registered users. Since its inception, Wikipedia has steadily risen in popularity, and its success has spawned several sister projects. There has, however, been much controversy over its reliability." Perhaps the operative word here is "controversy". For controversy equals publicity. Publicity equals more traffic and users. If Wikipedia is able to integrate credibility with controversy it will have a winning formula. For as hundreds and thousands now enter Wikipedia, they do not seek merely knowledge, but debate. All one has to do is enter a "discussion thread". And Wikipedia contains hundreds. It's becoming the mother of all blogs. Will
Wikipedia accept the Israel News Agency as a page worthy of it's site?
The suspense is killing me and those entered into the debate. And that is entertainment.
Wikipedia has become the "Weakest Link" TV show of the Internet. In the eleven years that I have worked on the Internet, beyond such chat systems such as the demised FireTalk and the growing PalTalk, Wikipedia appears destined for fame and fortune if they can only take on volunteers who are professional editors and understand the meaning of objectivity and balance. Lastly,Wikipedia needs to implement it's own guidelines such as allowing the author who needs to reach over 5,000 people and does, to enter Wikipedia without having to walk the "walk of shame" or having deletion sign dangling over his or her neck for a week. I ask only one thing of Wikipedia, do not allow bias and hatred into your site. Israel is assaulted verbally and physically every day. We do not need more debate taking place on Wikipedia. Let alone having Sharon's page "vandalized" as he fights for his life in hospital. But perhaps that's just it. You can debate frogs, flowers, politicians and high school football teams at Wikipedia. If this is what Wiki is seeking then they will reach fame but as And Warhol once said, it ain't gonna last more than 15 minutes. Wikipedia must step on the brakes and enlist world-wide professional editors to make their contributions with the general public having open and transparent access to these editors on their Website. For now they have many fine volunteers, who are reminded to treat each new user with "civility" and they do. That's a real compliment. But no brakes, Wiki will crash. Wikipedia got me to write this story. It's excellent public relations for them. They know what they are doing. Please excuse me now as I quickly upload this story to checkout the latest debate on the Israel News Agency and my personal bio. But
first I must ask myself a very basic question. Is it an encyclopedia, a blog or
Hollywood? Sponsored by IsraelPr.com |
