Just like Google, bad stories about Wikipedia and the celebrity Jimmy Wales will breach the users’ trust in Wikipedia. I do not think people are that concerned about Jimmy Wales private life but stories about trading edits for money like the one the Sydney Morning Herald reported on March 11th 2008 could raise concern. The Wikipedia Foundation has purely declined the accusations. You can also argue that there is not a lot of facts but more accusations in the article. But it is stories like that Wikipedia should avoid. In class, I also learned about the debate about the nobility criteria. There is all kind of rules a page has to meet to get published (or worthiness for inclusion according to the Wiki jargon). The Economist describes a few of them in their March 6th 2008 print edition like 10 matches in a Google search is better than nothing. But even though there are rules to manage this big thing deliberations about inclusion or deletion can take for ever and create a Kafkaeque bureaucracy. Do Wikipedia need this bureaucracy? You have to create an article that is deletion-proof and that will keep a lot of people from publishing anything on Wikipedia exept for the Wikipedia “elite”.
I am going to face the challenge of the deletion-proof contribution as I am going to write or re-write a page on Wikipedia for my class.
I had to make a comment on my own post about trust in Wikipedia after my teacher Garrett Graff talked about Wikipedia and its founder Jimmy Wales in class Wednesday night.