Open letter to Wikipedia

On March 29, 2011, in Miscellaneous, by Sanjeev Sabhlok 1

.

Based on an incident a few weeks ago, in which Wikipedia widely spread partially correct information across the world re: Rahul Gandhi (that the information was plausible is another matter), I've sent the following email to Wikipedia today, and am also publishing it here for the public record. I'm grateful to an anonymous person who sent me information on how I might pursue this matter.

.

OPEN LETTER TO JIMMY WALES

Dated 29 March 2011.

.

Dear Jimmy Wales

.

I'm writing to you with a suggestion regarding a fundamental improvement to your otherwise wonderful open encyclopedia: Wikipedia.

.

This relates to the quality and reliability of your content and to the inadequacy of warnings against the use of the information that you purvey.

.

The other day (details here) I happened to be quite seriously misled by an entry on Wikipedia that circulated widely on Facebook. That entry purported to precisely pin-point Rahul Gandhi's illicit and illegal wealth. Now, while I'm personally sure that Rahul Gandhi and his family (and all major political leaders in India) have stolen a very significant amount of money from the people of India (this money is used primarily for elections; see my book, Breaking Free of Nehru for details) I don't know the precise amount. The fact that this information was purveyed on Wikipedia meant I did not conduct the due diligence to check the references personally, and wrote a blog post challenging Rahul Gandhi to prove otherwise.

.

Why did I rely on Wikipedia? First, I made the assumption that Wikipedia has an effective editorial system, something I've personally experienced over the years (I've made a few Wiki entries myself, and once in ignorance of Wiki's system accidentally deleted some content and was subject to significant and instantaneous comment from Wiki editors). Further, I have also read in newspapers that it takes only about five minutes for entries to be reviewed by (voluntary) editors in Wikipedia after they are posted. And so I assumed that your volunteers had done their due diligence. But the fact is that Wiki editors had not read the references properly. It now appears that the closest amount cited in the references was about 10 times less than what the Wikipedia entry said.

.

I believe that it is not possible for a person to exercise due diligence on each and every entry on Wikipedia. And over the years everyone, including policy makers, academics, and students, have started using Wikipedia as an authentic source of information – just like they would use any other published encyclopedia.

.

It is for this authenticity presumably that Google gives Wikipedia a Page rank of 9 (at least that indicates its use) compared with a PR of 3 for my blog. Your Alexa rank also very high: 8, compared to mine which is in the 300 thousands! Your site is linked to over 1 million sites, mine is linked to only 40. All this confirms, at the least, that your site is relied upon by many millions each day to check facts. They believe you.

.

And so the importance of warning users against the fact that that your encyclopedia does not necessarily represent the truth. The message "caveat emptor" should be therefore spring up from every corner of your website.

.

Yes, I'm informed that you do have a disclaimer – but it is hidden away somewhere (here, to be precise). In that you are still not forthright that you are potentially carrying a huge number of falsehoods on your website. You merely write: "Content is not the result of an editorial decision by the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff". That's neat, and gets you (presumably) out of direct responsibility for content posted on your website. But what about those who use information posted on your website? How can Wikipedia possibly disseminate false information widely but also escape accountability? This doesn't make sense.

.

I'm all in favour of freedom but I find the dissemination of false information on Wikipedia to be a fundamental problem. Had Rahul Gandhi actually sued me in this case I would have had no choice but to directly implicate you. The original purveyor of falsehood is responsible, in my view. The secondary purveyor, if he has done so in good faith, is far less liable.

.

There is one way out of this gray area: Caveat emptor.

.

You are potentially selling a LOT of false and fake information. So at the minimum you are personally obliged to warn your customers that they must take full responsibility for the use of the information you purvey. Note that you presumably make a living out of this enterprise, so you can't escape full responsibility even then. Either you set up an editorial system with checks and balances, or you shut down your website.

.

At the minimum, I suggest you put out a warning in BOLD, RED colour (in a box) on EACH page on Wikipedia stating something like this, that "Wikipedia is not responsible for the content posted on its website, and you the consumer must take direct responsibility for any use you make of the information we purvey". This warning, on each page, would immediately create the right level of doubt necessary in this murky environment where falsehoods pretend to be facts. That way people like me who are increasingly becoming more careless in the diligence they need to exercise to verify Wikipedia information, would no longer take each piece of information they see on your website as gospel and would actually do some more work before acting on it.

.

I trust you will take the necessary corrective steps to ensure that you no longer purvey of fake and false information to the general public without adequate warning being issued to them. Selling false information (people have to pay to access Wikipedia, through their ISPs) would amount to a violation of your freedom, and I don't think you could escape personal responsibility should the crunch ever come on this matter.

.

I'd encourage you to discuss this matter on my blog as an equal. We are both concerned about freedom of expression, but there are no unbounded rights to libel anyone.

.

Regards
.

Sanjeev