Wikipedia is often criticised by the media and even some bloggers who believe that it is unreliable, anarchic and mysterious. Sadly these opinions are often assumptions originating from a lack of research of the ‘inner workings’ of the Wikipedia.
The odds are that the vast majority of people visiting the Wikipedia will stick inside what Wikipedians call the image and main namespace (a namespace specifies what type of page something is, for example pages with the prefix Template: are templates, Category: are categories etc). An important namespace which outsiders often don’t see is the Wikipedia: one where everything ranging from our core policies (such as a neutral point of view) to deletion debates exist!
I was indeed surprised to see a 9rules’ notes topic titled Did You Know Wikipedians Have Public Trials? because of the general surprise my9r members seemed to have; it would appear most didn’t seem to realise Wikipedians had an advanced dispute resolution process. It is worth noting that Wikipedians would object to anything on it being a ‘trial’ (in a legal sense) due to the status of WikiLawyering.
The Wikipedia isn’t exactly an anarchy. True, some vandalism (as well as potentially libelous material) seeps through the dozens of editors monitoring the latest changes but it’s extremely rare for a piece of vandalism - especially blatant pieces - to remain on a page for any lengthy period of time.
The vast majority of Wikipedia critics don’t realise that users who vandalise or add false information to pages are prevented from doing the same in the future. They will be given between 1 and 4 warnings and if they continue they will be blocked from editing. Anonymous users are rarely given indefinite blocks because it’s deemed unfair to the ‘well-behaving’ users of that IP address but a temporary one (a typical length is 48 hours) might be used. If an IP which has been blocked in the past chooses to edit after their blocks expires their edits will be ‘flagged’ as being made by a black or grey listed user. Normally user accounts are indefinitely blocked if they vandalise.
Another concerning misconception I’ve picked up is that when you discuss the Wikipedia with someone the only response they seem to be able to give is a list of pages they’ve vandalised! I’ve had people telling me that Wikipedian administrators are miserable for (semi-)protecting the Osama bin Laden article! They seem to think that the Wikipedia is their playground but still they choose to rely upon it when requiring quick research! Instead of editors reverting juvenile edits, they could potentially be bringing many more of the Wikipedia’s 2,000,000 articles to a featured standard than the current 0.08%!
One idea certain groups have which could help create a high-standard, free encyclopaedia is that it should only be administered by the degree-holding middle-aged (see Citizendium). In a way this is a good idea but I doubt many trainspotters - for example - hold a degree in trainspotting yet they still manage to produce high quality Wikipedian articles on trains and I don’t believe an academic background is essential to being able to do such things as block vandals and delete pages! Citizendium also shows a much slower rate of growth having only 2600 articles over a 10 month period as opposed to Wikipedia’s 10,000 in its first 10 months.
Many educational establishments prohibit their students from visiting the Wikipedia as they find the content unreliable. Jimbo Wales, the Wikipedia’s founder, even admits that the Wikipedia should never be used as a primary source. My opinion is that these establishments should tell their students to verify the content in articles before using it instead of banning the whole Wikipedia. Even if you dislike the Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia, I doubt you could dislike it as a resource to find sources relating to specific topics!
So to summarise here are some popular misconceptions and my rebuttal 
I vandalised the Wikipedia. That’s why you let me edit it, right?
Umm nope. We could be bettering the site which I’m fairly sure you frequently use than cleaning up the mess you make. Would you graffiti your local shops?
It’s free, so it can’t be any good
It’s true that the editors (with an odd exception) don’t get paid a penny for their edits to the Wikipedia. It’s a stark contrast from the professional editors at the Encyclopaedia Britannica who get paid but fail to churn out a quantity of articles which even compare to the Wikipedia.
If you really think the Wikipedia isn’t any good, you obviously haven’t looked at it in any detail whatsoever. Lots of people volunteer to do lots of things and produce great work (and that’s not limited to the Wikipedia or Internet :))
The Wikipedia isn’t a reliable source
You should treat information on the Wikipedia how you would towards any source; you should verify claims made and assess any potential bias (not that the Wikipedia attempts to have any of that!).
The Wikipedia demands that all edits are verifiable by a reliable source. Naturally, some unsourced articles slip through but if you edit it and add {{unsourced}} to the top of the article, editors will eventually attempt to source it. Even better, you could add sources which confirm the content yourself!
If editors continuously fail to source claims they make, it’s possible they’ll be blocked.
The Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which allows me to create an article on my gran!
Unless your grandmother is Goldie Hawn, HM Queen Elizabeth II or someone else notable, we will quite quickly delete the article you make. Much like recent changes, editors also patrol the newest pages. See the Wikipedian policy on notability before you create a page.
Wikipedia editors are mainly teenagers who war with each other
It’s true that a large proportion of Wikipedians are teenagers and it’s true that a few members - teenagers and adults - often enter disputes over policies or articles. If an argument starts to include personal attacks, the parties making the attacks will be blocked. Generally, if an argument continually breaches Wikipedia rules they will be dragged through the dispute resolution process (sometimes voluntarily, sometimes not). The Wikipedia has both arbitrators, mediators and formerly it used to have a member advocacy association.
You can use the term editor and administrator synonymously.
False. I often hear people moaning about admins reverting their edits but on inspection they are just editors. Most editors have the same powers (there are a few differences when it comes down to account age etc) and in order to become an administrator (with the power to block and delete) you must go through a process where other editors’ opinions are gathered so consensus can be reached.
If you have any questions about the Wikipedia I can try to answer them (this wouldn’t be an official Wikimedia Foundation response, though :P) just comment. If you have questions which require an official response email the OTRS at info-en-o (at) wikimedia.org for English language queries.
That blew a few myths and explained how it works. Cheers
I must admit I have probably been guilty of mentioning some of these myths. It’s interesting getting the info from someone on the “inside”.
I’d be interested to read more about your thoughts on the recently (quite well) publicised corporate censorship that has gone within Wikipedia on as well
Public trials? More like public *lynchings*.
[...] Joe” Anderson wrote a blog entry recently in which he attempted to debunk some “myths” about Wikipedia (or “the Wikipedia” as he calls it). It’s gives an interesting [...]
[...] Joe” Anderson wrote a blog entry recently in which he attempted to debunk some “myths” about Wikipedia (or “the Wikipedia” as he calls it). It’s gives an interesting [...]