issues why wikipedia must jettison its anti elitism by lsanger in op ed fri dec at am est tags internet all tags tabinternet tab wikipedia has started to hit the big time accordingly several critical articles have come out including the faith based encyclopedia by a former editor in chief of britannica and a very widely syndicated ap article that was given such titles as when information access is so easy truth can be elusive these articles are written by people who appear not to appreciate the merits of wikipedia fully i do however i co founded wikipedia i have since left the project wikipedia does have two big problems and attention to them is long overdue these problems could be eliminated by eliminating a single root problem if the project's managers are not willing to solve it i fear a fork a new edition under new management for the non techies reading this will probably be necessary tab tab let me preface this by saying that i know wikipedia is very cool a lot of people do not think so but of course they are wrong so the following must be taken in the spirit of someone who knows and supports the mission and broad policy outlines of wikipedia very well first problem lack of public perception of credibility particularly in areas of detail the problem i would like to point out is not that wikipedia is unreliable the alleged unreliability of wikipedia is something that the above techcentralstation and ap articles make much of but that is not my point and i am not interested in discussing that point per se my point is that regardless of whether wikipedia actually is more or less reliable than the average encyclopedia it is not perceived as adequately reliable by many librarians teachers and academics the reason for this is not far to seek those librarians etc note that anybody can contribute and that there are no traditional review processes you might hasten to reply that it does work nonetheless and i would agree with you to a large extent but your assurances will not put this concern to rest you might maintain that people are already using wikipedia a lot and that that implies a great deal of trust this is true as far as it goes but people use many sources that they themselves believe to be unreliable via google searches for example i do so all the time though perhaps i shouldn't perhaps wikipedia is better described as one of those sources regarded as unreliable which people read anyway and in this case one might say there's no problem wikipedia is being read and it is of minimally adequate and increasing reliability what more could you ask in other words why does a perception of unreliability matter i am willing to grant much of this reply i think merely that there are a great many benefits that accrue from robust credibility to the public one benefit but only one is support and participation by academia i am on the academic job market now and i felt it was necessary to explain my views about wikipedia's credibility for potential employers a great many of my colleagues are not at all impressed with the project but more about that in a bit another benefit accruing from robust public credibility is even more widespread use and support by teachers schools libraries and the general publicprecisely the people who want to use what they believe to be a credible encyclopedia to the extent that the project is not reaching and being supported by these people it is not succeeding as well as it might perhaps you might also maintain that while wikipedia does not now have a reputation for reliability it will eventually once enough studies proving its reliability are done and once people are more familiar with the concept behind the project this is hard to argue with but it is also hard to support because it involves predicting the future and the future when it comes to public opinion is extremely unpredictable it would be better to do something to help guarantee a reputation for reliability wikipedia has another sort of credibility problem mentioned in passing above and i fear that time is not a solution to this problem the way it might be to the foregoing one namely one can make a good case that when it comes to relatively specialized topics outside of the interests of most of the contributors the project's credibility is very uneven if the project was lucky enough to have a writer or two well informed about some specialized subject and if their work was not degraded in quality by the majority of people whose knowledge of the subject is based on paragraphs in books and mere mentions in college class