Wikitruth

For individuals who are familiar with the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, much of this article by Simson L. Garfinkel (not Simon Garfunkel), a professor of computer science at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA, will not be new.

What is interesting about the discussion put forth by Garfinkel is the distinction between truth and verifiability. According to the author, the Wikipedia model supports verifiability through policies that encourage the use of third-party sources rather than self-published original research. Editing your own entry is another act discourgaged in the Wikipedia structure. One example given by Garfinkel is about Jaron Lanier, whose Wikipedia entry stated that he was a film director (he claims he is not). Every time he deleted that statement, it returned. (NOTE: On October 24, 2008, the Wikipedia entry on Lanier did not list him as a film director.) Lanier also was criticized for his self-editing practice, which some consider a "wikisin." One would assume that Lanier would be an "expert" about himself, moreso than others.

While many consider Wikipedia a useful tool, especially when gathering preliminary information about the topic, and is considered a model of the wisdom of crowds concept, the question remains: What is truth? In Wikipedia, according to Garfinkel, truth is "the consensus view of a subject." Given the approach used for more mainstream publications where only a few individuals are involved, the Wikipedia method potentially allows for more input on what counts as complete and accurate information. But do more eyes taint the information or improve it? Who counts as an expert when it comes to a particular topic? What is the difference between expertise and self-promotion/self-marketing? Can information seekers ever expect to find the truth, or is verifiability good enough?