It’s hard to believe today, but 10 years ago Wikipedia was widely considered a doomed experiment…

Summary

Wikipedia has transformed from a project dismissed by critics as a utopian experiment into an invaluable, widely-used global resource, despite initial skepticism and criticism about its accuracy and the quality of its content.

Abstract

Wikipedia, launched in 2001, was initially viewed with skepticism and often criticized for its open editing policy, which led to concerns about its reliability and quality. Critics in 2005, such as those from The Register, Boston Globe, and Wired, doubted its potential to become a reputable reference work without the involvement of established experts and traditional editorial processes. They highlighted issues with accuracy, the presence of misinformation, and the variable quality of writing. However, over time, Wikipedia has grown to become the most popular reference site on the internet, providing accurate and comprehensive information to a vast audience daily. Its evolution exemplifies how a platform initially perceived as insignificant can mature into a significant and influential resource.

Opinions

Critics in 2005 believed that Wikipedia's reliance on community contributions and technical processes would not be sufficient to ensure high-quality content and that it required the involvement of real experts and top-quality writing to achieve its potential.
Some commentators argued that the internet's information ecology, including Wikipedia, did not inherently select for truth, instead favoring currency, controversy, and charisma, which could compromise the reliability of information.
There was a sentiment that Wikipedia's open-source nature and its role in the "age of participation" made it a useful tool but not necessarily a reliable source for in-depth research or academic purposes due to issues with factual accuracy and poor writing quality.
Concerns were raised about the lack of oversight and credentialed scholars in Wikipedia's editorial process, likening it to a public restroom in terms of the unpredictability of its contributors' expertise and intentions.
Despite the criticism, Wikipedia's trajectory has shown that a platform starting out as a "toy" can evolve to become a significant and widely respected source of information, challenging initial perceptions and setting a precedent for the potential of collaborative online projects.

It’s hard to believe today, but 10 years ago Wikipedia was widely considered a doomed experiment run by utopian radicals.

Today, Wikipedia is widely considered an invaluable resource. There are occasional errors and controversies, but for the most part it provides accurate, comprehensive information to billions of people every day.

Wikipedia was founded in 2001, and for the first few years was mostly treated as curiosity by those outside of the Wikipedia “movement.” But Wikipedia grew in popularity, and in 2005 became the most popular reference site on the internet. Popularity led to intense media scrutiny. Most commentators considered Wikipedia a doomed experiment run by utopian radicals. To give a sense of this for those who weren’t following the controversy at the time or don’t remember, here are some examples of popular critiques of Wikipedia from 2005.

“One day Wikipedia may well be the most amazing reference work the world has ever seen, lauded for its quality. But to get from here to there it will need real experts and top quality writing — it won’t get there by hoping that its whizzy technical processes remedy such deficiencies. In other words, it will resemble today’s traditional encyclopedias far more than it does today.” (source)

“The Seigenthaler affair points up a crucial condition of the Internet’s information ecology: It’s a system that doesn’t select for truth. Currency, controversy, charisma, fascination — these count much more in determining the vitality and survivability of online articles, facts, or ‘’memes.’’ In the 21st century’s networked knowledge environment, truth will be less and less identified by the imprimatur of expert writers and invisible, omnicompetent editors, but by readers who understand the principles of networked information.” (source)

“If you read anything about Web 2.0, you’ll inevitably find praise heaped upon Wikipedia as a glorious manifestation of “the age of participation.” Wikipedia is an open-source encyclopedia; anyone who wants to contribute can add an entry or edit an existing one. O’Reilly, in a new essay on Web 2.0, says that Wikipedia marks “a profound change in the dynamics of content creation” — a leap beyond the Web 1.0 model of Britannica Online. To Kevin Kelly, Wikipedia shows how the Web is allowing us to pool our individual brains into a great collective mind. It’s a harbinger of the Machine. In theory, Wikipedia is a beautiful thing — it has to be a beautiful thing if the Web is leading us to a higher consciousness. In reality, though, Wikipedia isn’t very good at all. Certainly, it’s useful — I regularly consult it to get a quick gloss on a subject. But at a factual level it’s unreliable, and the writing is often appalling. I wouldn’t depend on it as a source, and I certainly wouldn’t recommend it to a student writing a research paper.” (source)

“To many guardians of the knowledge cathedral — librarians, lexicographers, academics — that’s precisely the problem. Who died and made this guy professor? No pedigreed scholars scrutinize his work. No research assistants check his facts. Should we trust an encyclopedia that allows anyone with a pulse and a mousepad to opine about Jackson Pollock’s place in postmodernism? What’s more, the software that made Wikipedia so easy to build also makes it easy to manipulate and deface. A former editor at the venerable Encyclopedia Britannica recently likened the site to a public rest room: You never know who used it last.” (source)