Wikipedia and Politics

"A Wikipedia article is a process, not a product, and as a result, it is never finished," says Clay Shirkey, author of Here Comes Everybody.  He describes Wikipedia as a collective knowledge base where anyone can contribute information on any topic at any time.  What results is one of the most up-to-date, detailed, and (usually) accurate sources of information on the web.

Because of these things, Wikipedia is currently one of the most visited websites in the United States.  So, in the search results for nearly any subject on any popular search engine will have the Wikipedia page near the top of relevant sites.  Of course, there are many positive and negative implications that come along with Wikipedia's ease of accessibility and editing.

To exemplify the fluidity and popularity of Wikipedia, let's examine the way in which the site was used in the 2008 elections.

Wikipedia articles were one of the first pages to appear after a search for any given candidate.  And because these pages were completely user generated, campaigns had very little control over what was posted on their candidates page.  Of course, it is the campaign's desire to paint their candidate in the most positive light possible.  So, naturally, they want the page to be as factually accurate as possible.  Or do they?

Supporters of former North Carolina Senator John Edwards apparently wanted to omit the highly publicized $400 dollar haircuts he received on the campaign trail.  Mitt Romney's campaign were attempting to leave out details of his two weddings--one for a Mormon audience, and one for those who were not part of the religion.  And Fred Thompson supporters were allegedly trying to conceal the fact that the former Senator from Tennessee's birth name was "Freddie."

Of course these are all minor biographical details about each individual, but all these pieces of information ended up being accurate--and they would have probably not been as widely known had it not been for Wikipedia.  Because any one can post anything on any subject, that information sees the light of day.

However, this free and fast information comes with a price.  Wikipedia, being user generated, often faces questions of legitimacy.  And sometimes this questioning is legitimate, as the site has seen it's fair share of vandalism.  For example, the page for President Obama has been attacked with false information and pictures on several occasions.  In one instance a picture of a naked black man was posted as a picture of Obama on his Wikipedia page.  However, in this case, the picture was taken down only two minutes after being posted.

Shirky says, "Mass amateurization of publishing makes mass amateurization of filtering a forced move."  He claims that this publish-then-filter system is the only working system in social media.  So while Wikipedia is definitely susceptible to its pitfalls, this is the only way it can work.  However, in the end, what makes it vulnerable to such vandalism is also what makes it such a valuable tool in the information age.