For those who, like me, have been reporting on the evolution of the crisis in Venezuela, the news was not a surprise: Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia anyone can edit, is, to put it mildly, extremely unreliable. We’re not surprised because we have witnessed how the pages of Hugo Chávez and Venezuela have been edited to the point of being almost unrecognizable. In fact, Hugo Chávez’s supporters have proudly shared their ‘editing work’ on Wikipedia. Logically, the only natural conclusion one can draw is that no Wikipedia entry can be trusted.
The revelation of Essjay’s true identity – also known as Ryan Jordan – reinforces concerns about the online encyclopedia. A 24-year-old managed to deceive not only the Wikipedia community but also Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia. The fact that Wales got so far as to establish a working relationship with Jordan without even bothering to conduct the normal credential verification processes expected between an employer and employee speaks volumes about Wales’ duty of care toward his beloved project.
It is well-known that Wikipedia does not verify the credentials of its editors. However, knowledge about its processes and editing criteria remains scarce. Another anonymous wikipedian submitted a request to remove links to my site – vcrisis.com – from all pages related to Chávez. Flanker, as he calls himself online, argued that vcrisis.com is not a reliable source of information regarding Venezuela. But who is this Flanker character, and what motives drove him to make such a request? What I know is that he is a declared supporter of Hugo Chávez and regularly visits the comment sections of sites that publish commentary on Venezuela to promote the notion that Chávez’s Venezuela is the closest approach to paradise on Earth. I also suspect that he is not even Venezuelan, nor is Sandy, that other wikipedian involved in the subject. So how do people characterized by their shallow understanding and partisanship about our issues decide what constitutes reliable sources of information? Moreover, how are they allowed to rewrite history without providing credible evidence to support their claims?
Recently, another wikipedian (Maracucho) created a page about me that provoked the anger of Chávez’s fans, and they began editing it. When I realized, I tried to delete everything, fully aware of the childish approach wikipedians have towards facts. I couldn’t, but I was advised to take the issue to the Wikipedia information team [[email protected]] who agreed to my request to remove my page.
It seems that the message to take away is that orthodox encyclopedias, with responsible editing processes, will continue to be the preferred choice for serious people.