Participatory Journalism -- \"The Act

¶ … Participatory Journalism -- "The act of a citizen, or group of citizens, playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing, and disseminating news and information. The intent of this participation is to provide independent, reliable, accurate, wide-ranging and relevant information that a democracy requires" (Bowman and Willis, 2003).

Wikipedia is a collaboratively written encyclopedia. It is run by the non-profit association called Wikimedia, which is why there is no advertising or pop-up content on the page. The foundation's own definition of the site is a free, web-based, collaborative, multilingual project. The name comes from the words wiki (a technology for creating collaborative websites, from the Hawaiian word meaning "quick") and the Greek word "Encyclopedia" (storage of knowledge). Wikipedia boasts over 14 million articles, 3.1 million in English, with almost all the submissions available for editing by users. It was launched in 2001 and is currently the largest and most popular general reference work on the global internet (Baker, 2008). Usage climbs every year, and one agency executive, Max Kalehoff of Nielsen BuzzMetrics, commented, "It's the seminal collaborative online resource. It's like a living amoeba. It's constantly growing" (Woodson, 2007).

What is Wikipedia -- Wikipedia is a populist driven approach to knowledge dissemination. It operates on the theory that everyday people need a place to find information of all kinds -- from reviews of the newest film, to a detailed and deconstructionist approach to major motion pictures, novels, and literary works. Some articles on the site are excellent -- well researched, documented, and would pass muster within most academic institutions. Some, however, are uncited, opinionated, and lack scholarly depth. This, of course, is intentional when one works in a collaborative style. If we think of the simple numbers surrounding Wikipedia, we find that more people use it daily than Amazon or eBay -- it ranks with the popular social networks of MySpace, Facebook, and YouTube. It is often the first hit in a Google search, and there are no annoying banners or ads (Baker).

The hope, of course, is that the users of Wikipedia will, over time, act as an internal review and scholastic policing committee. Indeed, there are numerous articles currently on the site that indicate "citation needed" or, "consider revising," or even "this article appears to be opinionated, please rework for factual accuracy."

By its very nature, though, Wikipedia is part of the new Internet culture. It departs from the expert-driven style of the traditional encyclopedia building mode of limited topics, and moves to a grander approach -- even though that may be unacademic at times. When Time magazine recognized "You" as its Person of the Year for 2006, acknowledging the accelerating success of online collaboration and interaction by millions of users around the world, it cited Wikipedia as one of several examples of Web 2.0 services, along with YouTube, MySpace, and Facebook (Grossman, 2006). Some have also noted the importance of Wikipedia not only as an encyclopedic reference but also as a frequently updated news resource because of how quickly articles about recent events appear (Lih, 2004). Note in Figure 1 the rapid growth the site is seeing, but still falling a bit short than the projected increase.

Wikipedia is unique as well, in that its structure encourages anyone to participate in the project -- the technical specifications are set up to allow that first and foremost. No proof of identity of qualifications is needed. However, because it is social software, and the information stage of management is handled, a neutral point-of-view from Wikipedia is required (NPOV). According to founder Jimmy Wales, "NPOV is an absolute non-negotiable requirement of everything we do," and also a part of Wikipedia's guidelines ("Wikipedia: Neutral Point-of-View," 2009). The neutral point-of-view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Guided by this policy, the grassroots project has implicitly adopted the same types of operational policies facing many modern news publications -- sticking to the facts, attributing sources, and maintaining balance. Additionally, this approach should, in fact, create scholarly inquiry, and allow those interested to devote additional research time to the subject at hand.

Wikipedia also includes sister sites that are somewhat parallel to the mission. These sites, too, are meant to help the lay researcher, or the person who does not have the time, money, or is in a location, to visit a major research library. The top three are:

Wiktionary -- a free, multilingual dictionary with definitions, pronunciations, sample quotes, synonyms, antonyms, and translations. It is designed to be the "go to" dictionary for the person who is searching Wikipedia.

Wikinews -- Wikinews and Wikipedia overlap. A story in the international news, "Earthquake hits Paris," for example, will hit both places. Wikinews has more sourced materials and has had a more difficult time finding editors.

Wikisource -- an archive of "free artistic and intellectual works created throughout history." Essentially, historical documents (fiction as well as non-fiction) that are in the public domain.

What Wikipedia is not -- Wikipedia is not meant to be the depository of all human knowledge saved for posterity with no qualms about sources. It is a reference work on all types of subjects that is constantly evolving, it is not meant to be a final destination, nor a single source for a subject. Simply a way to disseminate knowledge in a practical, real-time manner using everyone everywhere as an expert. Wikipedia was conceived, and is managed, to be the starting place for research. It is a quick review of most topics, and, if the editors are doing what Wikipedia wants, will source and reference their material enough, and update needed citations, that it will provide not only content, but sourcing and additional expertise as well. Wikipedia is also not meant to be the only source users cite -- in fact, that is antithetical to its purpose. Instead, at least one author noted how truly amazed he was at Wikipedia and sister sites, in all languages across the globe, are all being run by a non-profit foundation that has only a handful of employees and a budget of only a couple of million dollars per year. And that even includes developing and distributing -- for free - the wiki software that all these projects run on. It shows what the Internet makes possible, given a good idea, inspired leadership, and the opportunity for everyone to contribute their time and knowledge. (Broughton, 2008).

Strengths- Of course, the major strength of Wikipedia is that is it offered free, available 365 days per year, and is available in most major languages. Because it encourages scholarship of all types, it is strong in encouraging scholarly thought and debate among those who may be experts on a subject, but not a scholar in that field (e.g. The accountant who is passionate about the Civil War and reads every book and reference possible about that subject). Wikipedia works by consensus, with users adding and modifying content while trying to reach common ground. This, too, is very positive, and allows people from all walks of life to gain skills in writing, editing, more research, analysis, and vetting of their own sources. Wikipedia, in a way, acts as a cultural reference point for globalization, and encourages cross-border dialog to the point that would be logistically impossible. The editorial policy of a neutral point-of-view, too, engenders a continual requirement of updating certain subjects and information. As new books and journals are released, Wikipedia keeps up with the times by ensuring contemporary input. As the author of "The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the 21st Century" notes: Part of being global means accessing information globally, "a collaborative encyclopedia sounds like a crazy idea, but it naturally controls itself" for everyone's benefit (Friedman, 2007, 120-21).

Weaknesses - Critics of Wikipedia accuse it five major problems, most of which are endemic for any encyclopedia or, indeed, any publication.

Systematic bias and inconsistency -- Whether an editor is a professional or amateur is unknown to the user, thus causing a public perception of bias. Critics say, for instance, that utilizing untrained and un-peer reviewed authors increases the likelihood of bias, whether that be intentional or not. They also point out that people use sources they think might be unreliable (e.g. simple Google or Yahoo searches) as well. Because Wikipedia relies on content editors, some topics may be undercovered, while others have too many edits. In topics that are not all that popular, then, it is probable that the robustness of sources or critiques will be lagging (Isanger, 2004).

Emphasis on Popular Culture -- Because Wikipedia is driven by the market, many lay persons have a greater interest in contemporary topics, therefore, there is a bias towards popular culture. The mix, then, is considered less than ideal. "It's still a funny mix. Of the two and a half million articles in English, nearly half are in the 'entertainment category,' with science and the arts a miserly 6 per cent and 2 per cent respectively. But, significantly, the category "politics and history" is the second most popular at 15 per cent" (Cohen, 2008).

Consensus vs. Credentials -- Scholarship implies a certain level of expertise on a given subject. The public must trust its sources, and those sources must be authoritative and peer reviewed. Most anyone can "read up" on a subject, but lack the rigorous academic analysis required in graduate school -- the pool that forms experts. Individuals may, or may not be, familiar with the latest in scholarship because they may or may not have access to the journals within a given field, or have the time to attend conferences to listen to the new directions and discoveries that academics are paid to pursue (Boyd, 2005).

Reliability and Accuracy -- Without any general editors, fact checkers, or other controls, Wikipedia encourages those without verifiable credentials to present material on which no one knows if they have any expertise. The hope, of course, is that peers online will edit and correct major errors, but there is certainly no guarantee that article x with fact y can be verified (Waldman, 2004).

Sourcing -- There is no control over sourcing, and it is left up to other editors or readers to comment on sources they are unable to find, or analyze. Because the sourcing requirements are so vague, the quality of sources is variable, and up to the expertise and abilities of the individual editor. This, to many, creates an environment in which a literal "feeding frenzy" of misinformation passes through Wikipedia on a daily basis, particularly on Wikinews and issues that are just starting (deaths, assassinations, etc.). For example, critics point to the issues surrounding the death of Enron Executive Kenneth Lay. News organizations began reporting Lay's death around 10am EST, within 6 minutes after Wikipedia had an entry labeling his death as "apparent suicide." Within minutes, that phrase was changed to "an apparent heart attack or suicide," and almost immediately to "yet to be determined" (Ahrens, 2006).

Wikipedia in the Schools -- Students are turning in papers citing Wikipedia without much thought as to the accuracy of the information. Knowing what sources to trust is becoming more of a labor-intensive exercise; blogs, for instance, may be run by certified and qualified individuals -- or they may be nothing more than opinion. The idea that "the source might be wrong" is a skill not usually mastered until college, but now required in Elementary schools because of the plethora of online sources. With Wikipedia, too, each of its entries is a collaboratively written research report -- it's not exposition or defense of a thesis -- just the opposite (Richardson, 2006).

The other side of the critique

. Systematic bias and inconsistency -- Wikipedia admits that it "suffers systemic bias that naturally grows from its contributors' demographic groups, manifesting as imbalanced coverage of a subject, thereby discriminating against the less represented demographic groups. This project aims to control and (possibly) eliminate the cultural perspective gaps made by the systemic bias, consciously focusing upon subjects and point-of-view neglected by the encyclopedia as a whole" (Wikipedia: Wikiproject).However, one of the mandates of the site is to concentrates upon remedying omissions (entire topics, or particular sub-topics in extant articles) rather than on either (1) protesting inappropriate inclusions, or (2) trying to remedy issues of how material is presented. Over time, the system will correct itself -- articles that are highly opinionated or completely unsubstantiated will be reedited or removed. Simply by Wikipedia being aware of a potential for demographic bias, the neutral point-of-view, while not always successful, encourages a more balanced approach (Glaser, 2006).

Emphasis on Popular Culture -- Of course popular culture is emphasized by many editors in Wikipedia. It is the news of today without waiting for the process of review, publication, and final distribution -- all which could take years. Why be upset about popular culture, it is the most relevant to society, and why not allow a system of review and editing on a subject that has not been around long enough to have the depth of research necessary to call it scholarly?

Consensus vs. Credentials -- If having an MA or PhD behind one's name was all it took to prove credibility there would be no need for peer-reviewing in the academic field, for conferences to listen to, and challenge ideas, and to have an open, academic debate about the interpretation of data. Scholars vehemently disagree with each other, even on minute points or supposed facts. It is true that Wikipedia prefers consensus, but that is a simply formulaic issue -- the more people that research a topic and believe a citation is right, the closer they will come to their goal (McHenry, 2004).

Reliability and Accuracy -- A perfect case-study approach to this issue revolves around the December 2005 when the journal Nature conducted a single-blind study comparing the accuracy of a sample articles from Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica. The sample included 42 articles on scientific topics, including biographies of well-known scientists. The articles were compared for accuracy by academic reviewers that remained anonymous ? A customary practice for journal article reviews. Based on their review, the average Wikipedia article contained 4 errors or omissions; the average Britannica article, 3. The study concluded: "Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds"(Giles, 2005).

Encyclopaedia Britannica's initial concerns led to Nature releasing further documentation of its survey method. Based on this additional information, Encyclopaedia Britannica denied the validity of the Nature study, claiming that it was "fatally flawed" as the Britannica extracts were compilations that sometimes included articles written for the youth version ("Fatally Flawed," 2006). Nature acknowledged the compiled nature of some of the Britannica extracts, but disputed the claim that this invalidated the conclusions of the study ("Britannic Attacks," 2006). Encyclopaedia Britannica also argued that the Nature study showed that while the error rate between the two encyclopedias was similar, a breakdown of the errors indicated that the mistakes in Wikipedia were more often the inclusion of incorrect facts, while the mistakes in Britannica were "errors of omission," claiming that "Britannica was far more accurate than Wikipedia, according to the figures; the journal simply misrepresented its own results." Nature has since rejected the Britannica response, and published a point-by-point response to Britannica's specific objections about alleged errors ("Nature's Response," 2006).