But in November of last year, Seigenthaler became the news when he discovered that his biography on Wikipedia -- the all-volunteer, collaboratively written, online encyclopedia -- linked him to the assassinations of both Robert Kennedy and his brother, President John F. Kennedy.

"At age 78, I thought I was beyond surprise or hurt at anything negative said about me," Seigenthaler wrote in an op-ed piece that ran in USA Today November 29. "I was wrong."

The incident threw the entire Wiki community into a harsh light, igniting debate over whether a community-run encyclopedia could ever be fair and accurate. The controversy has shaken the entire online community of "wikis," Web sites that rely on volunteers to add and edit content.

The culprit behind Seigenthaler's bio was eventually found, and the journalist declined to sue for defamation. But the fallout from the episode lingers. Scrutiny of Wikipedia and other wiki sites has intensified, and the online encyclopedia's growing popularity has magnified the challenge of weeding out misinformation and propaganda.

Can an idealistic, community-run effort to share information succeed with careful babysitting, or will Wikipedia's credibility suffer damage for as long as the site exists?

It Takes a Village

Wikipedia may be a victim of its own success. Since its founding in 2001, the site now has versions in 82 languages and features over 850,000 articles in English alone. It attracts upwards of 16 million visitors every month.

As the site becomes more popular, it draws more readers and volunteers eager to edit entries, making administration and fact-checking daunting tasks. The continually evolving nature of the site means administrators have to be especially vigilant about inaccuracies that may crop up when an entry changes.

Other wiki endeavors have suffered harm as well from inappropriate postings, such as when the Los Angeles Times had to take down its fledgling "wikitorials" site last year after a flood of porn and profanity overwhelmed the project.

Wikipedia operates on the expectation that collaboration among its contributors will improve articles over time, in much the same way that open-source software develops. But given the scope of the material that is covered, Wikipedia naturally attracts contributors who vary in their academic bona fides or even in basic knowledge of a subject. (continued...)

1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  Next Page >