[Wikipedia-l] fyi: Wikipedia as only as good as its links

Wed Nov 2 17:18:53 UTC 2005

[[ http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/culture/wikipedia/citation-and-trustworthiness?showcomments=yes
2005 Nov 02 | Can you trust the Wikipedia?

In the past week the perennial question of "Can you trust the Wikipedia?" 
arose while I was working on the tedious -- though oddly compelling for an 
obsessive like myself -- task of reviewing the early period of Wikipedia 
history. I slowly worked through the Wikipedia timeline ensuring each event 
was dated and sourced. I realize that if I'm ever to trust this timeline, I 
need more than a bald claim. And, my appreciation is so much greater when I 
can peruse the primary source. For some sources, such as the Nupedia list 
archives, I was able to find copies of messages on the Internet Archive. 
Another source, Jimbo's explanation about Stallman's proposal for a 
competing project, is seemingly lost forever. Fortunately, Stallman was 
kind enough to tell me of his recollection of the incident and allow me to 
publish it. Most frustratingly, I encountered a tantalizing mention of 
Internet encyclopedia proposals from the UN's Millennium Project but failed 
to find any source or corroboration; that information is stricken from the 
article. Which brings me back to the question of trusting the Wikipedia. I 
have addressed the broader question of epistemological authority before, 
but now I want to focus on the role of sources.

Simply, Wikipedia is only as trustworthy as its links. Actual scholarly 
authority is similar. A critical part of scholarly training is learning why 
and how to cite (link to) others. Expert authority is also generated from 
experience in the field, and theoretical and methodological training. Yet, 
as I've noted many times "'We can never know everything.' We all can't be 
experts on everything, so we often need to rely upon credible authority 
while remaining critical and skeptical, but never dismissive." 
Consequently, the tokens "Ph.D." and "professor" become proxies for an 
assessment of trust that very few people are able to substantively test, 
but, to which many are willing to defer. Because Wikipedia lacks such 
reputation mechanisms Wikipedia is, again, only as trustworthy as its 
links. For educational purposes, the implication of this is profound. 
Should we teach students to trust a claim because it was simply uttered by 
a credentialed person? Or, should we encourage them to click a link and 
teach them how to investigate for themselves?

The consequent of this for Wikipedia culture is that it doesn't link enough. 
Perhaps my experience with Wikipedia history is exceptional since 
Wikipedians take the sources for granted. But, as I found, that's a poor 
historical assumption. I also share the concern that articles might become 
overly busy or dense with citations. There is a tension here, but one I 
think the technology can handle. It's why I believe the trustworthiness of 
Wikipedia is in part dependent upon the citation project and furthering a 
culture of "if you claim, you cite" as implied by the Verifiability policy.

]]