Why Can't We “Claim” Wikipedia Articles?

Responding to recent criticism, Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales told CNET that to avoid future problems, the open source encyclopedia will bar anonymous users from creating new articles; only registered members will be able to do so. Anonymous users will still be able to edit articles. More importantly, Wales said he's not sure how to approach the question of whether people should be allowed to post on subjects in which they have a personal interest.

Here's an idea. Individuals and companies should have the right to “claim” articles that are entirely about them. Right now, if I am a podcaster, I can “claim” my channel on Odeo. If I am blogger, I can “claim” my feed on Feedster. If there's an article about me or my company on Wikipedia, there should be a mechanism that allows me to do the same on Wikipedia.

Now claiming an article on Wikipedia, if that feature were available, doesn't mean the subject would own it. However, it could allow people to have a more prominent say in what they feel is accurate in an entry that's about them and what isn't. Wikipedia is now growing into a cultural force, whether it likes it or not. With this comes some responsibility to put systems in place that help those who question it's accuracy have a more “visible” say in response to what the masses are saying, while being careful not to override it.

UPDATE: Wikipedia already has these boxes on its talk pages that indicate when a subject has edited their article. This is similar to “claiming.” They should be on the article pages too.

Technorati Tags: Wikipedia

Comments

[pwb]

Currently it's completely the opposite: people are *discouraged* from editing their own topic. I believe because they feel people would be less neutral about themselves.

[pylbug]

You're seriously overlooking one big, loud, glaring difference between Wikipedia and Odeo, Feedster, etc.

You can't claim anything on Wikipedia becuase it's open source.

Odeo is not open source. Neither is Feedster.

"Claiming" has no business in open source, and therefore not a wise idea for Wikipedia.

[Mike Driehorst]

A company, individual, etc., who claims an entry wouldn't necessarily ensure the information is accurate. You said it right that they would have
"a more prominent say in what they feel is accurate." What they FEEL is accurate. Not what is accurate. It'd be the same as if those in PR had a real say in their own company's or clients' articles in the media.

The other point in the final paragraph: "Wikipedia is now growing into a cultural force...." is only true in the online and/or blogging world.

Ask 1000 people -- even educated, professionals -- what Wikipedia is, and you'll likely get very few who have heard of it. It's like blogging. Most Americans and even most Internet users (as of early 2005) didn't know what blogging is.

So, before we go and pronounce something as a "cultural force," we should state what "culture" we are talking about.

Just my points.
Mike

[jc]

Allowing individuals to "claim" entries about themselves is just as likely to lead to more lies as it is to lead to fewer lies. People in the public eye -- as they are by definition if they're in Wikipedia -- have a vested interest in the content that pertains to them. It would take a degree of honesty and objectivity that few of us possess to avoid tweaking your entry to your best advantage.

The recent podcast flap is a fine example. It simply isn't rational to expect the competitive ego-driven experts in any field to impartially assess the roles each of them played, and continue to play. Would you trust Bill Gates writing about Bill Gates, or about Steve Jobs? And vice versa? Would you have trusted Nixon on Nixon and Kennedy?

I agree that Wikipedia needs to act to establish it trustworthiness, but in no case does it need to be "careful not to override" what the "masses" say. Fetishizing about the alleged wisdom of the masses is what got it into trouble in the first place.

[Scott]

I think Steve and others are right in suggesting Wikipedia is a cultural force -- the next Google. Within a year it will be one of the top 10 most trafficked sites online -- that's my prediction anyway.

I don't know that claiming an entry solves anything, even if it's feasible. I think that Wikipedia will need to devote more resources to validating new entries and edits of content. That could be difficult, given the current model, because fewer than 700 registered users are responsible for the majority of the entries and edits, according to a recent Jimmy Wales interview I saw. It's remarkable how few people really get actively involved.

Perhaps until content has been validated it can be flagged, just as content is now flagged when another user has called its objectivity into question. I think this kind of system has a better chance of working than a claiming system -- although there could be a place for both.

[Andrew Kaufmann]

Just look at the case of Adam Curry, who's been editing stuff about podcasting to feature himself more. People owning articles will use it for self-promotion -- pure and simple. It would turn wikipedia into a giant adspace. "Hey, for $100, I'll give you a link in the article about me on Wikipedia!"

The solution? There isn't one, if you ask me. Wikipedia is what it is. It's a place for people to collect knowledge as a group. Individuals within the group will be wrong. It's a wikipedia, an entity in and of itself -- not an encyclopedia. If it isn't plainly varifiable, then take it with a grain of salt. I think everything would still be 99% accurate. No source is 100% accurate all the time.

I think the only thing that needs to change is to explain more prominently what wikipedia is and how it works. Let people know that it's user written, and thus prone to inaccuracies but also a deep well of knowledge. I think people go there expecting an encyclopedia and that same level of editing; whereas, it's more like an extremely structured and vast message board.

[Alex Halavais]

I think this has already been said, but I do want to emphasize it: that isn't "owning" the page, it is warning people that an interested party has edited it. You seem to assume that a company is going to post the most accurate information. I think most people assume this exactly not the case.

[Eugene]

How can anyone be objective to himself. Owning the article is not a great idea a for me