Slate's Bizbox
chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics.

More on WikabilityThe arguments for a notability guideline don't hold up.

By Timothy Noah
Posted Thursday, March 1, 2007, at 9:00 PM ET
Illustration by Rob Donnelly. Click image to expand.

In two previous articles about Wikipedia ("Evicted From Wikipedia" and "Rescued By Wikipedia"), I argued that the open-source online reference work ought to abandon its "notability guideline," which says that an encyclopedia entry on a particular topic is ineligible for inclusion, and (at least theoretically) will be removed, if Wikipedia's gatekeepers conclude that the topic lacks sufficient importance. In the case of a paper encyclopedia, a notability standard makes perfect sense because of limitations of space, staff, and reader navigability. But in the case of Wikipedia, notability shouldn't be an issue, since Wikipedia has access to more or less infinite space, and (since its writers and editors are all volunteers) manpower, plus a method of navigability (the search engine) that's blissfully indifferent to volume. The only explanation I could find for Wikipedia's seemingly pointless notability guideline derived from Thorstein Veblen's 1899 classic, The Theory of the Leisure Class. Veblen argued that society sorts and discriminates among people and things long past the point where such actions have practical value, and that these "invidious distinctions" serve to uphold ancient status hierarchies. Wikipedia lets some topics in and keeps other topics out not because doing so is necessary, but because doing so is pleasurable.

Many "Chatterbox" readers disagreed with me, and I thought their arguments merited consideration. Here they are.

Wikipedia does not command infinite Web space. Servers cost money. Wikipedia is owned, along with some lesser-known Wiki projects (Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikinews, etc.) by the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikimedia's 2006 financial statement says its largest single expense is "Internet hosting," which cost $189,631 in 2006. That's more than a fourfold increase over 2005. Without a doubt, Wikipedia's rapid expansion is running up the bills. But that expansion is simultaneously increasing—at the same pace—the volume of contributions. These totaled $1.3 million last year—again, a fourfold increase over 2005 and easily enough to cover Wikimedia's total expenses ($791,907). Granted, there's no guarantee that Wikipedia's future income from contributions (or other sources) will continue to track Wikipedia's growth. But for now, at least, new encyclopedia entries seem to pay for themselves. So, it would at best be premature to worry that abolishing Wikipedia's notability guideline would put it in the red.

Banning the notability guideline is an invitation to sock puppetry. A "sock puppet" is an e-mail identity intended to disguise a user who's already known by a different e-mail identity. An example would be a book author who, under an assumed name, posts favorable reviews of his book on Amazon. Without a notability guideline, it would in theory be easier for someone to post a Wikipedia article about himself, a practice Wikipedia strongly discourages even when the author doesn't hide his identity because such entries tend to be self-serving. But if an article is self-serving, that should be evident either from its tone or from its use of unverifiable facts, and therefore subject to correction or elimination by other Wikipedia users. If someone uses a sock puppet to post an article attacking a personal enemy, its hostility and/or unverifiability ought to be similarly self-evident. You don't need a notability guideline to rein in such misbehavior.

Facts about nonfamous people are difficult to verify. In my earlier columns, I suggested that I ought to be able to post a Wikipedia entry about my cleaning lady or my mailman, provided they didn't object. Such entries, readers note, would be hard to verify from print sources. Agreed. But in the event I were able to rustle up reliable citation sources for the facts about my cleaning lady or my mailman—possibly provided by them—I would no doubt find it especially irritating, after all that effort, to see these bios removed on "notability" grounds. If I didn't rustle up reliable citation sources, their bios could get tagged for removal because of unverifiability. So, where's the problem?

Wikipedia articles about non-notables get policed less. Because fewer people will see these entries, they'll be more likely to contain errors or diverge from legitimate Wikipedia standards. True. But this is a Zen riddle. If nobody sees a Wikipedia entry, it won't matter. If very few people see a Wikipedia entry, it won't matter very much.

How many George Bushes? There are two people in the world named George Bush who are of great interest to many readers—three if you count Jeb Bush's son, George Prescott Bush, who wowed 'em at the 1988 Republican National Convention—and who knows how many more people named George Bush who are of little interest to most readers. How to prevent the wrong George Bush coming up on a Wikipedia search? This is a nonproblem. The "real" George Bushes will come up first, and if you want to save a little time you can enter "George Bush" and "president" as search terms. Judging from this search page, a much more serious problem is the more than 10,000 separate Wikipedia entries for the 41st and 43rd presidents that really ought to be consolidated into two. A notability standard does nothing to fix that.

Wikipedia would turn into MySpace. No, it wouldn't. Entries would still have to conform to Wikipedia format and standards.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Timothy Noah is a senior writer at Slate.
Illustration by Rob Donnelly.
E-mail Timothy Noah at .
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

I'm a Wikipedia administrator and a long time opponent of the overuse (though perhaps not complete elimination) of the notability guideline. I argued to keep your Wikipedia article. That said, I'm going to play devil's advocate for just a moment and point out where I believe one of your "More on Wikiability" counterarguments is weak.

In response to the claim that "Wikipedia articles about non-notables get policed less," you argue that "[i]f nobody sees a Wikipedia entry, it won't matter. If very few people see a Wikipedia entry, it won't matter very much." It matters very much, actually, as such articles could be written to unfairly disparage their subjects and remain in such a state for a long period, potentially opening the foundation to legal action if they are eventually discovered (see the John Siegenthaler Wikipedia article for a not completely analogous but nonetheless appropriate example). Regardless of the legal aspects, they argue, it would speak poorly of the project to allow such articles to exist in the encyclopedia ad infinitum in some cases. The counter to that, of course, is that libel laws should be an adequate deterrent and that the responsible editors, not the Wikimedia Foundation, are the guilty parties.

In any event, this argument is perhaps the strongest one put forward by the pro-notability crowd as it is the most well supported by precedent, and it shouldn't be taken lightly regardless of which side of the discussion one is on. Thanks.

--jersyko

(To reply, click here.)

This reminded me of a story I heard this morning on the BBC: Conservatives who feel that Wikipedia is too "liberal" and "anti-christian" have started their own version. It is called, of course, Conservapedia. And it is worth checking out... if you are in need of a good laugh.

The arguments in favor of a Conservative version of the truth (with the capital C of Christian) are, err, strongly felt... "On Wikipedia, many of the dates are provided in the anti-Christian CE instead of AD." Perhaps even worse, "Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words." There can be no doubt about it, the antichrist is among us, and he runs a Wiki.

To link with a a different article in Slate, that on North Korean intelligence, the Conservapedia entry on Korea is worth quoting in full. Don't worry, it is mercifully short, spelling and syntax errors included:

"A counrty that is now spilt because of the issue of communism. We went to war with North Korea (the communist half) from 1950-53, to help South Korea, the half which had been assaulted first. It is known as the Korean War."

At least we can learn from this that North Korea is the Communist half. So let's amuse ourselves with Conservapedia's definition of communism:

"Communism is government in which the state owns everything and the wealth is divided evenly among the citizens. Communists believe that if they share everything, no one will ever have to work. It is an atheist government not believing in God and only in the "state" as the supreme thing on the earth."

One gets the creepy feeling that in the lonely hours of the night, in the Oval Office, the president of the USA is contributing articles to Conservapedia. It certainly reads like an original Bushism...

But it must come as a great relief to the unhappy citizens of North Korea that according to Conservapedia, they are not required to work.

--MutatisMutandis

(To reply, click here.)

(3/3)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
A Grand Tour
David Broder | While the stars align for Obama, McCain is looking like the odd-man-out on foreign policy.
Annette Heuser: A Honeymoon
PLUS » Achenblog: The New Capitalism Socialism