Are [increased] Policy

Rules and Regulations

Paving a Course for
Wikipedia's Self-
Destruction?
What do you think?
Post your comments below
 To better understand the implications of Wikipedia’s increased policy and guidelines, I began working on the

Wikipedia page [under the user name rchopra009], Tokbox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokbox), an internet company

that offers free videoconferencing service to the public. Out of the three core content policies, I chose the Neutrality Point

Of View (NPOV), which is considered a

fundamental Wikipedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All articles and other encyclopedia must
be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without
bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected
of all articles and editors.

Obviously, the rule requiring a neutral point of view serves to legitimize the entire Wikepedia enterprise, and blogs

typically reflect opinions and/or advertisements. However, my experience while editing TokBox page demonstrates that

the same rule which filters misinformation from entering, blocked me from adding valid information from a reliable

source. Moreover, Wiki has failed in my eyes to properly balance democratic access of “knowledge creation” with the need

for some constraints on what is deemed “knowledge.”

First, I should note that the site was tagged for several reasons, including the need for article improvement,

additional sources for verification since, as Wikipedia states, it “may contain original research or unverifiable claims… [it

is] written as an advertisement and needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view…and may have been edited by a

person who has a conflict of interest with the subject matter.” Because I noticed the content to be minimal (in fact the

2
topic/article has been labeled as a “stub” by Wikipedia), and because I have had some experience and done some research

about “Tokbox,” I added a significant amount of information, including updates on “recent news,” “2009/10 history,”

“competition,” and “controversy.” I added citations to support my updates. A message indicator appeared. After I clicked

on the message box, the following appeared:

The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included
in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): (matching the regex rule \breadwriteweb\.com\b). If you were
trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my
creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our
policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make
those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more
information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ
page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC).

When I began to look up the guidelines, I had to dig through an enormous amount of information and a web of assorted

links to figure out exactly why my citation was not in compliance. I discovered in the "Links Normally to Be Avoided"

section that my citation was problematic because it was a blog. Specifically, my citation had fallen under the following:

"Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is

meant to be very limited; as minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for

biographies.)" In fact, the citation which caused my additions to be "reverted," was by Steve Walling, “TokBox & EtherPad:

Video Chat Gets Real-Time Document Editing.” ReadWriteEnterprise Blog 27 Aug 2009

<http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2009/08/tokbox-etherpad-video-chat-gets-real-time-document-

3
editing.php>. This site is designed to be a guide to new computer technologies using actual research combined with

observations and input from the online community at-large. ReadWriteWeb is the second largest information technology

blog, providing analysis of Web products and trends to an intelligent audience of engaged technology decision makers,

Web enthusiasts and innovators. Apparently, an automated widget had rejected the citation; however, as a source for

information about the new TokBox platform, I believe the citation is a valid one. If I had persisted, the process becomes

exceedingly complicated. Indeed, if I had attempted to “revert” over three times while engaging in the Wiki process of

regarding disputed content, I would have been punished in a variety of ways, including being banned completely from the

site. In the end, I simply removed the contested citation and submitted my content again. This has “stuck” so far, but the

site remains tagged as before. I readily admit that the process—a long and tedious one at minimum--“convinced” me not

to press the issue—although I still believe the citation is a relevant and important one.

With over 11 million articles, and upwards of 155,000 active users, the policy of using an automated widget feature

as a filter makes sense. However, the difficulty of maneuvering around the application along with the abundance of rules

and guidelines certainly discourages the new users. My practical experience of attempting to add a citation to support the

information on TokBox page makes me wonder just how much potentially important information may be essentially

“blocked” by the many gatekeepers (human and mechanical) that enforce rules and regulations. The core objective of the

Wikipedia community is knowledge in a “consensus-seeking” or some would say in a “democratic” setting. While

4
Wikipedia does have several systems in place to keep out misinformation, one wonders if those same procedures may

prevent significant material from coming in. With the policies and guidelines continuing to increase, it may not be so

unreasonable to ask the question: Is Wikipedia becoming a bureaucratic institution (bounded, universalistic, and

complex)?

Rohit Chopra, Harvard University

2.9.10