« ALA Study of Government Inquiries to Libraries (More on the Patriot Act) | Main | New ALA report: Nearly all libraries offer free internet access »
June 21, 2005
A Failed Wiki Experiment
Today's New York Times has an article about an experiment by the Los Angeles Times using Wiki technology to let readers alter a 1,000-word editorial, in much the same way as the Wikipedia allows alterations in articles.
After Slashdot.org posted a link to the "Wikitorial," the LA Times started finding pornography posted, and the paper was forced to take the site down after a day and a half, early on Sunday morning. Here is the LA Times story on the episode. The paper expresses hope that some version of the feature may be tried again in the future. Too bad that "juveniles" (in emotional maturity, if not age) had to screw it up for others.
Posted by tdr at June 21, 2005 09:42 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blog.case.edu/tdr/mt-tb.cgi/1623
Comments
It makes me wonder why wikis work so well in some environments but not others. We could certainly use some formalized research on the subject.
Do you think it was because the article in question was owned by the LA times, where wikipedia has a more distributed feeling of ownership? I imagine it would be fun for juveniles to deface the works of others, but not fun to deface something they felt they could call their own.
Posted by: Aaron Shaffer at June 21, 2005 09:56 AM
Good question, Aaron, and the articles in the papers didn't give any insight. I hadn't considered the concept of "self-ownership", but that seems like a reasonable explanation. Also, wikipedia is a much larger organization that has more people to self-police, as opposed to one or two staff people at the LA Times to monitor the activity.
Posted by: Tim Robson at June 21, 2005 10:18 AM
I think other wikis have been successful because a niche group is using them. Other than the big Wikipedia, the others I have seen were used by a group centered around a specific topic. Everyone was knowledgeable in the area and used the subject-specific wiki as a regular communication tool. In addition, most wikis are not hosted or started by commercial entity. By LA Times starting a wiki that created just another platform that unhappy customers could use to get revenge (of course, I don't think that is specifically what happend this time).
Posted by: Brian Gray at June 21, 2005 11:16 AM
All true wikis (anonymous edits) are commonly held hostage to vandalism. It is all a question of the dedication of those passionate about the content on the wiki. Just look at the history of any article of the day at WikiPedia. You will always find numerous reverts in the course of a day to correct vandalism.
The solution to the problem is limited access. Although this undermines the spirit of a wiki, I believe the trade-off is worthwhile. You discourage vandalism by knowing exactly who vandalized while at the same time promote accuracy in content because people are more likely put forth more effort when their name is attached to the finished product.
If men were angels, no limitations would be necessary. Unfortunately, the presumed power and freedom that anonymity provides overwhelms human rationality.
Posted by: Gregory Szorc at June 21, 2005 08:21 PM