Wikipedia woes: what happens when the neutral point of view isn't neutral?

CER Report

In this paper we address a number of issues concerning online encyclopedia Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org).

Wikipedia seems like a great idea. An open access encyclopedia which anyone can edit, dealing with the majority of subjects of interest to the modern reader, all for free on the internet. And for many of its editors it is a great idea. Hours of (more or less) innocent enjoyment can be had in editing articles, sharing knowledge and discussing areas of interest with others.

Unfortunately, there's a series of problems attached to Wikipedia, and they have a particular impact on self-regulating universities.

In many areas of the project, editors will never come up against the difficulties we describe below. Even in contentious areas where there is obvious disagreement and divided viewpoints, the discussion is usually somewhat measured and an attempt is made to achieve neutrality. This is not the case in an area such as private postsecondary education where there are major establishment and political interests at stake, and where an establishment cabal is capable of exerting a stranglehold over what is allowed to be posted in pursuit of their own agenda. This area is unique because it is one where the establishment can only win on the basis of presenting its opinions as dogma. It cannot win on the facts alone, and it cannot win if the facts are presented in a genuinely neutral or balanced manner. The only answer is to ensure tight control of what is allowed to be presented on this subject and to hide behind arguments of public protection when challenged.

Read more