I have mixed feelings about this development for Wikipedia. On one hand requiring credentials may compromise the participation rate—as many users value the so-called “anonymity” that contributing currently provides. That said, are we ever really anonymous on the Web? Postings, images and links live on forever…and most of what we say, view and purchase online is stored someway, somehow, somewhere. And of course, requiring authors to back up their assertions with credentials sets a precedent overall for more accountability. As PR professionals, we are always careful to cite sources, attribute quotes and provide full disclosure of how we arrive to a conclusion or viewpoint. Shouldn’t we expect the same from the people driving the progress of one of the Web’s most popular tools?
Comments (1)
I think that Wikipedia has become as popular as it is because you don't have to be an expert to add your "two cents" to a wiki. While it may seem like this user-generated content would generate a lot of questionable information, Wikipedia is remarkably efficient and accurate with the content it presents. Oftentimes, the people who post to Wikipedia may not be experts, but they usually have enough knowledge on the subject to contribute, and providing credentials to qualify that knowledge can be difficult. I do not think that just because a contributor does not have a degree in the subject on which he or she is commenting, that the contribution be discounted. If it was required, it is quite possible that Wikipedia wouldn't have grown to be the wealth of information that it is today.
Posted by Andrew Rodger | March 8, 2007 4:14 PM
Posted on March 8, 2007 16:14