Information uncommon: Wikipedia for pay
The problem of decentralizing information
Information Uncommon: Wikipedia for Pay
Decentralization may lead to site’s demise
Jimmy Wales had a fantastic idea. During the relative infancy of the internet, he envisioned a free, online version of Encyclopedia Brittanica. However, instead of having all of the content created, edited and curated by a small cadre of paid employees similar to a traditional print encyclopedia, his online collective would include the writing and editing of authors from all across the world. And most of them would work for free. As farfetched as that still sounds, it worked. And now we have Wikipedia, the legendary company Wales founded.
One of the most intriguing elements about Wikipedia is its organizational structure. The hierarchy is relatively flat and it’s incredibly decentralized. Instead of having the entire editing team together in a couple of adjoining buildings, Wikipedia editors are spread all over the world at essentially the same level in the organization. By having this flatter structure, new content can be added relatively quickly without a slow and stifling central bureaucracy to oversee all editorial decision-making. Remarkably this structure worked. At least for a while.
It was recently reported that Wikipedia editors had banned 381 accounts. It was revealed that these account holders were being paid money in exchange for creating favorable articles for payees as well as protecting them against negative edits — clear violations of the Wikipedia editorial policy.
To its credit, Wikipedia responded quickly to these complaints. It also acted appropriately by handing out harsh penalties such as banning these accounts. Unfortunately, although Wikipedia has a global presence and generates a high volume of traffic, the site is not heavily monetized. Wales himself has earned little money from his creation and many of its editors remain unpaid. Given the international nature of the content it hosts, Wikipedia must constantly grow as new phenomena need to be cataloged on its site. And due to the allure of a favorable Wikipedia entry for personal and professional reasons, there are clear incentives in trying to take advantage of the lack of oversight in the current organizational system. Underpaid editors can be surreptitiously remunerated and the “client” can receive a favorable Wikipedia page. There are only two losers. Users who expect objective content and Wikipedia’s hard earned reputation.
Given the relative effectiveness of the longstanding decentralized model of organization, the breadth of the site, and the lack of sufficient monetary resources to financially support editors, it is difficult for Wikipedia to change the way it works. If it became more centralized, it wouldn’t be Wikipedia anymore. It would be an online version of the Encyclopedia Brittanica — an older, top-down style of bureaucracy would most likely come into place, editorial decisions would take longer, and the responsiveness of the site would slow down. Unless Wikipedia erects a pay wall, better monetizes its site through advertising, or finds an angel investor, expect mishap like what happened with these rogue editors. It’s a question of when, not if; and whether the scandal will be manageable or catastrophic.
You don’t get something for nothing. And threats of errors, deception, and misinformation are part of the price we pay when we get information for free from a site like Wikipedia.