Wikipedia⎯our go-to information giant for all things under the sun and above⎯may be tainted, after all. Especially when it comes to politically charged science issues.
Wikipedia is subject to edit-wars over politically controversial issues
Wikipedia was launched more than a decade ago and has become one of the most accessed websites globally. It is the sixth most popular website with over thirty thousand active editors working on three million edits to the four million articles found on the English version of the website. The secret to the establishment and upkeep of one of the massive, accurate, most up-to-date fountains of information relies on the “bold, revert, and discuss” cycles implemented by Wikipedia. Volunteer editors are asked to make ‘bold’ edits, which could involve adding, deleting, or even rewriting article content. This could then be ‘reverted’ by another editor if they do not agree with the said edit. Following reversions, editors are encouraged to discuss the article on a dedicated “talk” page.
This method usually takes care of the due diligence required to publish accurate information, much like the peer-review process scientists undergo before they can publish. In fact, Wikipedia has built another filter into its system to prevent content of questionable content from getting out. It does not allow editors more than three reverts on a page within 24 hours. Despite these checks and controls, Wikipedia is seeing a surge in edit-wars often associated with politically controversial topics.
Politically controversial topics show higher edit rates on Wikipedia
Scientists from the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, devised a method to study if the edit-wars on Wikipedia had any predilection towards political controversy. In a study published in PLOS ONE they looked at the editing behaviors associated with “politically controversial” (not scientifically controversial) and “politically uncontroversial” topics from 2003 to 2012.
The topics in the former category included acid rain, global warming, and evolution, whereas heliocentrism, general relativity, continental drift, and the standard model in physics constituted the latter category. These topics were compared on the basis of three metrics: 1) daily edit rate, 2) mean edit size (number of words added, deleted, changed etc), and 3) mean number of page views per day. They found that the edit rate for the acid rain topic was significantly lower than that for global warming and evolution, but greater than each of the uncontroversial topics. Moreover, the edit sizes for controversial topics were also categorically higher than uncontroversial ones.
Thus, topics whose scientific validity has been established unequivocally could still be subject to sabotage based solely on them being involved in the political quagmire. This study, though limited in its ability to make causative associations, brings up concerns about the reliability of Wikipedia as a source.
Is Wikipedia a reliable source of information?
In light of the edit-wars, information on Wikipedia needs to be scrutinized and compared with other sources of primary literature. Meanwhile, improved algorithms devised to identify hot-button issues and rate editors’ credibility could make Wikipedia more reliable.
In the end, when it comes to science, it pays to ask questions, and it never hurts to hear from different sources.
What political topics interest you? Comments welcome below.
Keep your stuff safe with Nanoform:
Wikipedia Edit Wars: Evidence Tampering in Politically Controversial Topics
No comments:
Post a Comment