In the everyday lexicon of your average wired college student, there are many terms that describe our most common and important internet predilections (“facebook”, “sparknote”, etc). One word that is sure to enter our e-colloquial more and more in 2006 is “Wikipedia.” Wikipedia is the next big thing in the open-source revolution occurring in the online world (the name comes from wikiwiki, a Hawaiian word meaning “quickly”). It is an online encyclopedia that contains articles on every subject imaginable, all of which are submitted by thousands of volunteers. Yet, none of these volunteers is required to have any academic background in the subject he chooses to write on. In spite of—or perhaps because of—this, Wikipedia has gained enormous popularity and success since its inception in 2001, now containing about 2.5 million entries (almost 1 million in English) in more than 100 languages. These numbers are especially impressive when compared with Encyclopedia Britannica's relatively modest 120,000 articles.

But while universal access to writing Wikipedia’s material has been its greatest strength and given it limitless growth potential, this access has recently also become its worst problem. Like so many of us, Wikipedia was almost brought down by a Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory. Unfortunately, unlike Oliver Stone, Wikipedia didn’t have the dashing good looks of Kevin Costner to bail it out. In 2005, several individuals complained that their Wikipedia biographies contained libelous errors. The most notable complaint came from John Seigenthaler Sr., a past member of the Kennedy administration, From May to October of 2005 Mr. Seigenthaler’s biography read that, “he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven." The fabricated claim, written by an anonymous Wiki-user, was eventually outed by Seigenthaler himself, and drew a tremendous amount of bad publicity to Wikipedia.

Part of the reason for this error, as critics of Wikipedia co-founder and overseer Jimmy Wales cited, was that writers and editors of Wikipedia were not required to register to submit articles. They only needed to access the URL and the ability to type. Since then, of course, that problem has been remedied such that now users must register to edit or add content to the site. However, people gained a sense of distrust of the site, some believing that none of the content could be trusted. It was a tough blow to the credibility of a once-trusted information source.

Wikipedia’s luck changed on December 14th, 2005 when the journal Nature published a study comparing the accuracy of the online encyclopedia to that of Britannica. Upon examining articles of scientific content, the study found that, on average, the Encyclopedia Britannica articles contained 3 “inaccuracies” (factual errors, critical omissions, or misleading statements), while Wikipedia ones contained only 4. A tremendous sigh of relief came from the Wiki-community, for it now had the validation it needed to be considered a legitimate information source.

As lackluster as this short history may seem, it holds great implications. Think about it: Brittanica selects their writers and editors extremely carefully, not to mention that it also pays them. Wikipedia employs almost no one and yet it is strikingly similar in quality to that of an information giant. Furthermore, the online index is still only in its infancy and though it is four years old, has only gained widespread popularity within the last two years. Britannica, however, has been around for almost two-hundred and fifty years! This shows incredible potential for environments unrestrained by corporate policies and bureaucracy.

Ultimately, the whole matter boils down to an issue of trust. As the saying goes, “You can’t trust everything you read online.” Of course, you can’t trust everything you read in print either. For while Wikipedia certainly remains much more vulnerable to attack from pranksters and inaccurate writers, print information giants are subject to inaccuracy as well, not to mention political bias. The subject of much debate today, objectivity is disappearing more and more in publications supposedly dedicated to the facts. Newspapers and magazines like the New York Times, Time Magazine, and U.S. News and World Report are containing increasing amounts political bias, regardless of which schools of thought they endorse.

It is in this sense that Wikipedia's approach becomes most valuable. Since the online encyclopedia is open to anyone of any political, religious, or moral conviction, is it less susceptible, in theory, to the sway of predisposition because of its mixture and balance of writers. It is, in many ways, a zero-sum game. An example Mr. Wales uses: if a pro-choice activist posts an article on abortion, a Catholic priest can then post his article on the same topic and a forum for discussion opens up, where all or most of the opinions surrounding the issue are presented. It is because of this ability that Wikipedia's model is an ideal of multipartisan intellectual discussion and progress.

Yet, the most dangerous threats to this model are the pranksters that bring unwarranted discredit to the site and when the fear of that brings censoring from site's owners. It is a Catch-22 of sorts. The only way that this model will work is if the articles receive absolutely minimal censoring, putting the site at the mercy of the honesty of each internet user. In spite of this pitfall, the model has thrived. Ultimately, it seems that the lesson Wikipedia has taught the modern world is that even provided with limitless potential to do harm by falsehood, the online community still largely retains honesty as a stronghold of its collective moral conscience. Perhaps even the much-vaunted print industry could stand to learn a thing or two.