Wikipedia and the Neutrality Principle

Chapter Seven focused on the history of Wikipedia, conceived in 2001 as a free encyclopedia anyone can edit. José van Dijck (2013) noted its evolution as it shifted from "being a collaborative project experimenting with the online production of encyclopedic knowledge, to being a professionally run, volunteer-based, nonprofit organization whose goal is the online production of an encyclopedia" (p. 132). This platform is what separates it from other platforms. She noted that "Wikipedia shapes online sociality not by implementing buttons for liking, friending, following, and trending… but by constructing a platform for 'knowing' that is moored in organization" (p. 133).

The technology used to maintain the content of the site used a variety of bots that aid in the editing/co-authoring of entries and that are used to administrate the site by blocking spam and detecting vandalism. By the end of 2010, over 16% of all edits made in Wikipedia were executed by bots, thus revealing a necessary collaboration between users and software (p. 138). But from Wikipedia's origins, users have always played a large role in information maintenance. Until 2006, "Wikipedia was largely written and maintained by a core of dedicated editors—2 percent doing 73 percent of all edits" (van Dijck, 2013, p. 134). Its original intent of being written by and maintained by experts never really took off, and so users lacking in desired credentials aided in its content development and began to add topics and connections that had not been see as valuable, and over time, a hierarchy developed amongst the users. In 2006, Wikipedia began to limit those who could edit. Longtime supporters observed that the democratic ideals of the original site had been compromised, and the ability to contribute and spread knowledge was tied down in a techno-bureaucracy.

The content of Wikipedia was shaped by a variety of principles, three rules, and guidelines that worked with users and bots to generate and patrol content. The first rule of verifiability meant that readers must be able to verify content they find on Wikipedia using reliable outside sources; the second rule dealt with original research in that content must be cited and connected to proven sources; and the third rule dictated that all entries must be written from a neutral point of view to avoid bias. Van Dijck noted that what restrained the legitimacy of Wikipedia was the reliability of information used in entries and a poor adherence to the rules. Forcing the neutral point of view was difficult and can provide a consensus on specific realities if enough people agree on them. Wikipedia's formatted content had become a space that collects opinions and influences them.

Ownership played a role in how Wikipedia was marketed and the content used to disseminate and collect information. So far, its centered business model as a non-profit has aided in its ability to side-step various elements of influence. The creation of the Wikimedia Foundation, separate from Wikipedia, was an effort to find a way to raise funds to maintain Wikipedia without the interests of contributors influencing content. Because, unlike Google and Facebook, "Wikipedia firmly grounds itself in a non-market space; the site does not exploit proprietary algorithms; its governance model, albeit complex, at least is transparent for its users, and the platform's operation suits its nonprofit objective" (van Dijck, 2013, pp. 148–149). This analysis of governance stemmed from the notion that Jimmy Wales, the founder, ruled Wikipedia along with a select group of individuals who helped him maintain order and content. However, there were several levels of policies and committees designed to give users the notion that they have a voice in the content they created and in how that content was represented. Given all of these complexities, van Dijck stated that, "it is disputable whether Wikipedia has truly managed to occupy a privileged space independent from the main corporate players and the norms and principles undergirding the ecosystems of connective media" (p. 149). It is clear that Wikipedia's independence is in jeopardy.

However, what made Wikipedia so unique was that it was a nonprofit space within the corporate ecosystem. It still raises money, just not in the bulk in which Google and Facebook can. It raises money the way a corporation would, and that model cannot be ignored. Van Dijck did an excellent job of deconstructing the history of Wikipedia; however, she could have expanded more on the influence of external forces (donors) who know that the website is one of the most heavily consulted spaces online, and also one of the most influential.