Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View and Verifiability

Wikipedia is a very unique online encyclopedia in that it is open source and openly editable by anyone who chooses to make themselves a contributor simply by registering online. The ease of becoming a Wikipedia editor leads to a lot of criticism for the reliability and verifiability of Wikipedia as a trustworthy source, especially in academic settings. This is why Wikipedia has a strong set of guidelines in place, their five pillars, to keep Wiki contributors from presenting false or biased information. Wikipedia’s featured articles have even stricter criteria to ensure that editors write only well-written and neutral articles that are backed by thorough research. All of these guidelines combined are the sources the Wikipedia contributors utilize in making their composing decisions. The most important factors in these composing decisions involve sticking to a neutral point of view and providing verifiability for the entire article, both of which are done almost entirely by thoroughly researching article topics and providing as many sources as possible to make sure that every single sentence provides necessary, useful, and credible information to the article as a whole and to Wikipedia consumers in general.

To exemplify the factors that make one Wikipedia article “better” than another, one can compare articles on “MarshallMcLuhan” and “Michelle Citron”. These articles have several similarities in that their leads introduce that both of these people were scholars of sorts, cover their lives and careers, and use external links and footnotes to verify their sources and provide credibility. However, there are also many factors that make the composing decisions and overall article for McLuhan “better” than the article on Citron. The article on “Michelle Citron” is much shorter as a whole, has a very short lead of only one sentence, has very few external links that are non-descriptive and nonspecific, fewer references, and a structure with no subsections. The lack of external links and references are the biggest factor in deciding that this article has less to offer. It provides less information and is less credible.  The article on “Marshall McLuhan” gives a thorough lead introducing McLuhan’s contributions to media theory, provides substantial external links on his external influences, and a thorough and descriptive structure with subsections that further break up the article into digestible sections for the reader. The references for McLuhan’s article are also numerous and from credible sources including Random House, university presses (ex: Oxford University Press), and credible journals from Routledge.

In another comparison of what differentiates Wikipedia as a source from other online encyclopedias is a Wikipedia article on “Henry Sidgwick” compared with an article from the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on “HenrySidgwick”. While the Wikipedia article is very thorough and overall a useful and informational source, I would still use the source from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy in doing credible research on Henry Sidgwick. There are several factors that make the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy a “better” source. First is the lead, which is much more descriptive than the Wikipedia article. It reinforces that Sidgwick is one of the most influential ethnical philosophers of the Victorian era and goes on to include many of his influences and contributions, providing more introductory information than Wikipedia. Another benefit of the Stanford Encyclopedia is its language and tone, which are both more academic sounding, using more philosophical sources and information to describe Sidgwick’s work. The structure and outline of the article are also much more thorough, with more descriptive titles to inform the reader what they will be learning about, including useful subsections as well. The source list is also thorough, utilizing credible sources from scientific journals and several Oxford and University Presses. The one benefit that Wikipedia has over the Stanford Encyclopedia when comparing the article on Henry Sidgwick is its use of footnotes, showing the credibility of every single statement, whereas the Stanford Encyclopedia uses in-text citations instead making it a little more difficult to track down and use the outside sources.

Another important part of Wikipedia is its featured articles. These are articles that receive the most attention and are most closely monitored for their neutral point of view and verifiability, which are enforced by the standards of the featured articlecriteria. Neutral point of view and verifiability are so important to prevent cases of plagiarism. In “Plagiarism and Promiscuity” Wiebe states that, “As Moore Howard suggested, in academic writing, at least, there is no simple ‘originality,’ no such work that simply jumps from the student’s mind to the page in some unmediated way” (Wiebe 33). This is applicable to Wikipedia because the article must utilize outside sources to provide their information to avoid wrongly using claims and facts. These two important parts of the featured article criteria can be examined for their strengths and weaknesses in the Wikipedia article on “W.E.B. Du Bois”.

Wikipedia defines neutral pointof view as “representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic” (1). The article on W.E.B. Du Bois is very strong in representing a neutral point of view. It does this by being careful not to present claims as facts or facts as claims. Presenting a neutral point of view prevents the possible rhetorical velocity of using outside sources in different contexts than their original. In “Rhetorical Velocity” Ridolfo and Rife state, “Ridolfo and DeVoss (2009) defined rhetorical velocity as ‘the strategic theorizing for how a text might be recomposed (and why it might be recomposed) by third parties, and how this recomposing may be useful or not to the short- or long-term rhetorical objectives of the rhetorician’” (Ridolfo and Rife 240). The article discusses Du Bois in depth but also discusses his outside influences and how their work impacted Du Bois and the era that he lived in. This article also has a strong use of external links, which helps support that there is a lot of context for the work that Du Bois did and shows that it is a well-researched article while not bringing in too many extraneous details by allowing the reader to do further research on their own through the links. By not creating bias, this article presents a neutral point of view, simply telling of Du Bois’ life with no bias for the social issues he impacted or how he played a role.

The verifiability of the article on Du Bois also has many strengths, but a few weaknesses as well. Wikipedia defines verifiability as “[meaning] that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source” (1). This article is certainly verifiable, based on its very thorough citations (with almost 300 footnotes). Its verifiability is also proven through its substantial further reading list as there is a lot of information to be covered on Du Bois and further reading makes the article less dense by allowing the reader to do further research instead of providing too much extraneous information. However, the reference list is very short considering the length of the article and the number of footnotes. The reference list is important because Wikipedia articles rely on appropriation to present their information.  In “Rhetorical Velocity,” Ridolfo and Rife say, “…because cultural properties – unlike natural resources – are not exhaustible, and in fact depend upon appropriation to survive” (238). Appropriation is necessary, but it must still be properly cited and provide enough reference. A longer and more in depth reference list would provide much more verifiability for this article.

While all of these Wikipedia articles discussed have both their strengths and their weaknesses, they all follow Wikipedia’s five pillars and article criteria to some extent as these are loose guidelines that are up to the interpretation and use of the Wikipedia editors. Providing loose guidelines rather than rules is essential to the world of Wikipedia because as Zittrain says, “When we face heavy regulation, we see and shape our behavior more in relation to reward and punishment by an arbitrary external authority, than because of a commitment to the kind of world our actions can help bring about” (Zittrain 128). By following guidelines instead of rules, Wikipedia contributors can work freely to provide the best information possible while still working ethically to be credible.