Introduction
In Part 1, I presented background information about my research on editing Wikipedia articles.
In this concluding Part 2, I want to present five important editing-related observations from my research:
- The delicate balance between democracy and accuracy;
- The freedom editors have to focus on subjects that interest them;
- The need for multiple and dynamic style guides;
- The existence of socially constructed ranking systems; and
- The prevalence of additions over deletions.
1. Democracy vs. Accuracy
As I mentioned in part one on this topic, many people are hesitant to trust the information on Wikipedia, because literally anyone can contribute to it. It is true that anyone with access to the Internet can edit most Wikipedia articles, and some deliberately vandalize the site by deleting entire articles, adding blatantly false information for humor, spreading libelous rumors, and/or trying to advance their own agendas. There are also those who make good faith changes to articles, which ends up causing confusion because they do not have much knowledge about an article’s topic, misunderstand an article’s subject or Wikipedia’s editing policies, or do not write well. If no one policed Wikipedia articles, the online encyclopedia would be highly untrustworthy.
However, just as editors of academic journals carefully review submissions before publishing them, there are Wikipedians, known as “administrators,” with greater rights and responsibilities for ensuring that articles are written accurately and from a neutral point of view. While there are no specific requirements for becoming an administrator, users must undergo a nomination and review process to achieve this designation. Administrators facilitate discussions about controversial issues and ensure that the revisions resulting from these discussions reflect consensus.1 They also have the power to delete, restore, and change the names of articles, as well as block editors who repeatedly vandalize the site. Administrators are truly devoted to ensuring that Wikipedia remains accurate, and sometimes that means removing editing privileges from other users who repeatedly exhibit disruptive behavior.
2. Freedom of Choice
While observing the “2009 Northwestern Wildcats football team” article, I discovered WikiProjects. A WikiProject is a collection of articles related to a certain topic, and, for editors interested in said topic, it provides a forum for establishing guidelines and ranking the WikiProject articles.
- The vast majority of Wikipedia editors are volunteers. Although the Wikipedia community portal includes lists of both tasks that users can undertake and articles that need improvement, editors are free to choose the articles they want to contribute to.
- Wikipedians do not see editing as a chore, but as a way to share information about their passions with others.
- Regular contributors to Wikipedia are personally interested in ensuring that the online encyclopedia’s content—particularly the articles related to their interests—remains accurate and well-written. Editors who are interested in a particular topic may join a WikiProject. For example, “2009 Northwestern Wildcats football team” is part of WikiProject: College football. Editors interested in college football can visit the WikiProject: College football page, where they will find a list of articles that are part of the WikiProject, as well as suggested tasks to work on and a style guide for articles related to college football.
3. Multiple and Dynamic Style Guides
In addition to giving editors a way to focus on articles they are interested in, a WikiProject may also have a style guide for articles that fall under its umbrella. Wikipedia has a main Manual of Style, which includes conventions such as headings, abbreviations, and citing sources – much like many print style guides. It also dispenses information on markup language and links. However, some WikiProjects have their own style guides that are more relevant to the articles they include. The main goal of these separate style guides is to maintain consistency in the WikiProject.
WikiProject style guides are generally meant to supplement Wikipedia’s main Manual of Style rather than contradict it. For example, the college football WikiProject’s manual of style includes naming conventions for articles. However, sometimes WikiProject style guides may contradict Wikipedia’s primary Manual of Style. Last summer, a discussion about whether it is acceptable for WikiProjects to develop style guides that deviate from the main Manual of Style took place on the Manual of Style’s talk page.2The consensus was that when such conflicts arise, discussions should take place, and the style guide with the greater consensus should prevail. The main Manual of Style is not meant to be superior to the style guides developed by WikiProjects, because all style guides on Wikipedia contain guidelines that are based on decisions that Wikipedia’s editors have agreed upon.
None of the style guides on Wikipedia are set in stone. One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is that it does not have firm rules; policies are guidelines that are always subject to change. However, they are not subject to change at the whim of a single editor. Rather, an editor wanting to make a major change must begin a discussion on the talk page of the article in question to explain his or her rationale. Other editors give their opinions, but a change can only be made after consensus is reached. Revisions that are made without undergoing this process are likely to be reverted. Style guides are flexible, but they must reflect the views of the Wikipedian community.
4. Differing Quality Standards
In addition to having their own style guides, WikiProjects also have quality scales that are tailored to the types of articles they include. The rankings range from stub to featured.
As I mentioned in the first part on this topic, featured articles must be nominated and reviewed by the larger Wikipedian community before they can achieve Wikipedia’s highest ranking. Good articles undergo the same process, although the criteria for this rank are less strict. However, the ranks of other articles (stubs – A class) are determined by WikiProjects. Members of WikiProjects can rank articles without first soliciting input from other editors.
Although the quality scales on different WikiProjects are similar, they are not identical. Thus, an article may have different rankings on different WikiProjects. For example “2009 Northwestern Wildcats football team” is a stub on the WikiProject: Chicago quality scale, and a start (the rank above stub) on the WikiProject: College football quality scale. This illustrates how different communities construct different standards.
5. Inclusion vs. Deletion
The final observation I made in my thesis is the prevalence of additions over deletions. Because Wikipedia is not bound by any size limitations, editors can write limitlessly long articles about anything they find important. Articles tend to expand and spawn other articles, rather than contract. The number of newly created articles is generally greater than that of recently deleted articles.
In the Wikipedian community, there is an ongoing debate about inclusion vs. deletion. Some editors describe themselves as “inclusionists,” while others identify themselves as “deletionists.” Inclusionists support retaining most articles, even those that cover obscure topics. Deletionists believe in deleting articles that they consider insignificant or poorly written. In other words, while inclusionists generally favor openness over considerations of quality, deletionists are more cautious and tend to believe in ensuring that new articles meet certain standards of notability and good writing and deleting those that are not up to par.
While I have found that additions still outnumber deletions, there are those who believe that Wikipedia’s editors are becoming less inclusive. It is possible that the initial excitement of adding information about just about everything to Wikipedia has abated and has been replaced with a sense of caution, particularly among more experienced editors.
Conclusion
To review, while observing the editorial process on Wikipedia, I made several discoveries that have implications for the editor’s role in an online environment. First, editors must achieve a balance between giving everyone the opportunity to edit and making sure that articles remain accurate and well-written. This sometimes involves revoking editorial privileges. The existence of WikiProjects taught me that Wikipedia editors can choose the topics they want to focus on and thus become personally invested in their work; that style guides may need to be adapted to suit articles in different categories; and that articles may be ranked differently depending on the WikiProject(s) they belong to. I also found that, on Wikipedia, additions tend to outnumber deletions, but that this trend may be reversing.
If you are interested in learning more about the editorial process on Wikipedia, please see my full thesis at http://www.scribd.com/doc/38721959/Tellis-Final
.