Whither Wikipedia?

Katharine Seelye has a piece in today's NYTimes (hat tip to Gilliard) about the most troubling aspect of Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia--the ability for liars to post defamatory or misleading material that might then be construed as reliable information by the casual user.

Seelye writes on the case of John Siegenthaler, the 78-year-old former editor of The Tennessean, who discovered that an anonymously-written Wiki entry said he "was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John and his brother Bobby." Siegenthaler has chosen to speak out directly about the defamation, particularly since laws guaranteeing internet anonymity frustrated his attempt to find someone to sue.

Stirling Newberry on BOPNews has written a number of posts detailing the problems that can arise when malicious authors with a political or ideological agenda use Wikipedia as a platform for dissemination of their views.

The notion that the Wikipedia entries are not formally vetted by recognized authorities in any particular field has always troubled me. This is not to say that "authorities" can't get things wrong, but that they are accountable with their reputations and livelihoods.

Yet I refer to Wikipedia from time to time in my posts. In those cases, I am trusting that the linked information is reliable for two reasons: 1. I have some prior knowledge that leads me to believe the entry is factual, thus the link is provided for reference purposes. 2. The linked wiki entries are non-controversial, i.e., they are on scholarly or historical topics with little in the way of political or ideological undertones.

Should I ever refer to Wikipedia information that a reader can prove is false or misleading, I would certainly welcome authoritative correction. The most damaging aspect of stories like Seelye's is that they are used by mainstream media to paint the entire universe of internet research and information as unreliable, a snakepit of gross distortions and disinformation. It is, of course, in their interest to do so, but every confirmation like this is a setback for the broad acceptance and credibility that is due the honest players.