Wikipedia, referred to as a world treasure, turns 20 on Friday. According to research done over the years – including a scientific study published in 2005 by the journal Nature and a report compiled by the Wikimedia Foundation in 2012 on the site – Wikipedia’s entries are comparable to those in prestigious encyclopedias such as Britannica. However, it is difficult to measure the consistency of information that can be changed at any time.
Sometimes the quality of the entries is a matter of number of words, because longer articles usually contain more details. However, the length differs per language. For example, a sentence in French may contain more words than one in Kiswahili, which attach topics, objects, and tenses to verbs. Measurement according to the file size of an entry is also of limited use because some alphabets take up more virtual space, Martin Rulsch, who works for the German section of Wikimedia, has been volunteering for the site for more than 15 years. .
According to Rulsch, the quality must be measured by individual indicators. He said that a large number of contributors alone did not necessarily translate into quality content. An article that is initially “extensively researched” and actually healthy will not always benefit from multiple changes and additions. Moreover, it is not easy to quickly recall the number of authors in each language version, he said. It is therefore not easy to measure the quality of Wikipedia according to a formula.
Wikipedia’s ‘many authors’
Poor spelling and grammar can be a sign that an entry is not standard, said Nenja Wolbers, a project manager of the German Digital Opportunities Foundation. She said users should pay attention to whether an article is neutral or expresses an opinion, and whether it provides a broad overview and offers different perspectives.
Users should be on the lookout for inconsistencies and should always check the sources, Wolbers said: “It is essential if I want to know if information is valid.” She said it is important that quotes are referred to and that users check the sources. “It makes sense to simply click on the links,” she said. Wolbers uses Wikipedia to get a general overview of a topic, but “that does not mean I have a final answer.”
“Users should remember that Wikipedia is a site used by many authors,” she said, “and it is possible to change things quickly.”
Compare Wikipedia’s languages
Articles on the same topics are written independently and edited by authors in different languages. They can emphasize different aspects of business; there may even be a lot of different information. Entries about Crimea, which Russia annexed from Ukraine in March 2014, vary by language. DW’s fact checking team analyzed the German, Russian and Ukrainian entries. The German version calls the Crimea a ‘Ukrainian peninsula’, while the Russian does not mention that it belongs to Ukraine, although he acknowledges a territorial dispute. The entries contain most of the same basic factual information about the region, but the entries differ on recent events: the Ukrainian version has a section called ‘Annexation of Crimea’, but the Russian refers to the ‘Accession of Crimea to Russian Federation ‘. “Most Russian entries on the subject do not mention that the March 2014 referendum that led to the annexation of Crimea was not considered legal by the government of Ukraine and many international institutions, which also does not recognize the annexation.
Rulsch cites the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the Nagorno-Karabakh area, which has recently flared up again. “I’ve been seeing this conflict on Wikipedia for over ten years,” he said. “The issue is about definition – whether it was genocide or not – and who started it.” Volunteers like him can work as mediators in such situations. “I do not think there is truth and neutrality, but Wikipedia’s goal is to get as close to it as possible and strive for it,” he said. “If there is no neutral point of view, several points of view can be presented.”
Wolbers recommends that users use translation tools to read Wikipedia entries in other languages, as well as to search for other sources.
Politicians manipulating Wikipedia?
Several cases of politicians editing the entries about it have been reported. In Germany, the energy lobby is accused of adapting Wikipedia entries to ‘wash green’. Celebrities such as American actor Lindsay Lohan have been pronounced dead. Wikipedia even has a list of fake entries in nine languages. A hoax article about a fictional extinct carnivore named Mustelodon has been online for 14 years and nine months – at least according to Wikipedia. “The darker a subject is, the less likely it is that people will read it,” Rulsch said, “and the smaller the language version, the greater the chance of manipulation.”
There are mechanisms to prevent this, but Wikipedia often relies on users. “In theory, I could now spread conspiracy theories about antiquity because not so many people would read it,” Rulsch said. “But someone would notice if there was a link to another author, and then all my edits would be thoroughly researched.”
Rulsch is very familiar with non-German pages, as he is also a ‘steward’, giving him access to ‘small Wikipedias’: language versions with less than 50,000 articles and less than ten administrators, to whom he provides support. He said there is generally less tendency to manipulate entries in smaller versions because there are fewer readers.
Wikipedia’s controls
To prevent tampering, administrators can remove users who have violated the regulations. They can also protect articles so that only certain users can modify them. For example, the Bosnian version of the 1995 Srebrenica massacre entry is protected, and the rights to edit different entries in English regarding genitals are restricted.
Over the years, Rulsch said, a system of quality control has been developed by language versions with a large number of users. For example, German entries must be given the green light before they are published, and only registered users may create new articles in English. Bots are also used to sift out certain words, such as vulgar terms. There is also a transparency tool for users of all language versions, which provides a history of edits and deletions.
So is Wikipedia a credible source? Many of the entries are well documented, checked for quality and – unlike reference books – often completely up to date, but the online encyclopedia, 20 years after its creation, is not 100% reliable because information can be manipulated. , and sometimes almost undetectable.
Therefore, Wikipedia encourages users to be vigilant and use their critical judgment.
This article was adapted from German.