"The Outer Limits" of Wikipedia

Wikipedia has been in the news lately. Cass R. Sunstein, who teaches at the University of Chicago and is the author of Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge, writes in the Washington Post that Wikipedia “has been cited four times as often as the Encyclopedia Britannica in judicial opinions, and the number is rapidly growing.” Wikipedia, he says, helps demonstrate “society's unstoppable movement toward shared production of information, as diverse groups of people in multiple fields pool their knowledge and draw from each other's resources.” He adds that businesses as well as organizations like the CIA and NASA are using wiki technology to improve productivity.

As for test and measurement, Wikipedia seems to be an informative and interesting resource. Look up “oscilloscope,” for example, and you get a nice description of what a scope is, how it works, its history, and fun facts you’re not likely to find in a textbook: “In the 1950s and 1960s, oscilloscopes were frequently used in movies and television programs to represent generic scientific and technical equipment….The 1963–65 US TV show ‘The Outer Limits’ famously used an image of fluctuating Lissajous figures on an oscilloscope as the background to its opening credits (‘There is nothing wrong with your television set….’).”

The Hatto music fraud controversy that I commented on last week helps illustrate the timeliness of Wikipedia information. Notes David Hurwitz, executive editor of ClassicsToday, “Wikipedia…has an interesting role to play in this saga. Within a day or so of the news breaking, the Joyce Hatto article had been substantially revised. It now sports an ongoing list of purportedly stolen recordings….”

But Wikipedia is not without its faults. Malicious anonymous contributors have used Wikipedia to spread false rumors. Says Hurwitz of the Hatto affair, so far the revised Wikipedia entry “seems to have been carefully compiled, and the attributions judiciously worded. Still, the possibility for mischief is very real. It will be fascinating to see how this tale continues to unfold, and if future entries adhere to minimum standards of editorial responsibility.”

Indeed, an editor’s note in the March 5 New Yorker (it doesn't seem to be online) indicates a problem with the level of editorial responsibility you might be getting with Wikipedia. One site administrator named Essjay represented himself to writer Stacy Schiff as a tenured professor of religion holding a Ph.D. in theology, which Schiff reported in a July 31, 2006 article; the March 5 editor’s note explains that in fact Essjay holds no advanced degrees and has never taught. The magazine contacted Wikipedia cofounder Jimmy Wales, who said of Essjay’s misrepresentation, “I regard it as a pseudonym and don’t really have a problem with it.” I don’t have a particular problem with pseudonymous contributors, but I do have a problem with them lying about their credentials.

Less serious problems center on Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. Slate writer Timothy Noah, faced with his bio being deleted because of his insufficient notability, complained that “Wikipedia's notability policy resembles US immigration policy before 9/11: stringent rules, spotty enforcement…wouldn't you know, some notability cop cruised past my bio and pulled me over. Unless I get notable in a hurry—win the Nobel Peace Prize? Prove I sired Anna Nicole Smith's baby daughter?—a 'sysop' (volunteer techie) will wipe my Wikipedia page clean.”

Apparently, Noah’s complaint alone made him sufficiently notable that his bio was rescued. He nevertheless contends that the notability requirement should be eliminated.

Finally, the blogger who goes by the name Jon Swift (and accompanies his bio with a drawing of the 18th century satirist who wrote “A Modest Proposal”) contends that Wikipedia is too liberal: “For years home-schooled children have had to rely for all of their information on Wikipedia, which is full of dangerous ideas that home-schooling was supposed to prevent from seeping into the home.” Swift’s recommendation? Conservapedia. Swift reports this sample definition: “Theory of Relativity: Nothing useful has even been built based on the theory of relativity…” yet “Congress continues to spend billions of dollars unsuccessfully searching for particles predicted by the theory of relativity."

So far, oscilloscope has no Conservapedia definition. I’m not sure an "Outer Limits” reference would pass muster.