Down with Wikipedia!

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Though its articles can be written and edited by anyone and thus aren’t always free of bias, it is supposed to present facts only, not opinions. There are mistakes in the content of some of its 3.8 million articles, and occasionally a clearly biased entry or a purposely fictitious statement will make its way into an entry, but for the most part I think it’s pretty well run and relatively accurate, at least on its more popular, highly-trafficked and highly-scrutinized pages. I know better than to pull information from Wikipedia without fact-checking it elsewhere, but I love its presentation and think its serves its purpose well.

Because of that encyclopedic nature, critics think its blackout sends the wrong message. Encyclopedias shouldn’t be taking political stands, they reason. No matter what kind of an impact something like SOPA may have on Wikipedia, critics say, the website should do nothing more than present both sides of the issue and leave the debate to others. Some also feel that it’s hypocritical of Wikipedia, in protesting the issue of leaving the internet free and open, to remove its content.

In its statement, the site claims “although Wikipedia’s articles are neutral, its existence is not.” It says that the information it compiles must be made available for it to be useful, and that censorship of that information “hurts the speaker, the public, and Wikimedia.” And Wales told CNN that there is no hypocrisy in its one-day protest because “free speech includes the right not to speak.” He says Wikipedia’s existence as a “charity” makes it especially imperative that it be permitted to facilitate the free exchange of information.

I get that people want Wikipedia to keep its neutrality, and if its political positions started to seep into its articles, I’d lose all respect and use for it. However, I have no real problem with it separately protesting an issue that directly affects its interests. The one-day removal of its services from the English speaking world’s disposal is a bit extreme, particularly because its own users and supporters may be hurt by it, but I think the idea of a protest or of stance-taking by Wikipedia that doesn’t impact the neutrality of its encyclopedia is fine.

A good analogy, to me, is a newspaper like this one. Our reporters have opinions of their own, politically and otherwise, and sometimes those opinions are expressed. We express them in column or blog form to let you know they’re opinions. Some of you feel otherwise, but I think our reporters do a fantastic job of covering the news without letting those feelings cloud their presentation. That doesn’t mean we don’t have an opinion one way or the other; and once a week, the paper itself makes its stance known on an issue in editorial form.

And while my opinion is that Wikipedia should have the right to express its stance, I’m not sure I agree with that stance itself. I am, in most cases, for the free and open exchange of information, but I’m also against piracy and against people being able to steal the hard work of others. To be honest, I’d need to research SOPA and PIPA more thoroughly before I could take a stance on them. Maybe I’ll start by rereading their Wikipedia articles ... provided they’re available.