A prominent science writer with her own WP bio, who knows nothing about WP's often-bizarre history. But makes good points about its shortcomings and its dominance in search-engine rankings. "Professional journalists" rarely talk this honestly.
If any of you can get her attention, tell her about the book project. I'd be happy to tell her the dark parts of WP history if she just emails me directly. Been unable to find a way to send her a message.Yet Wikipedia’s top ranking on Google gives it credibility and authority that misrepresents what it is—a community consensus. “This is a problem,” according to Atilus, a leading digital marketing company. During an audit for a client using prime SEO software, Atilus found Wikipedia at or near the top over and over again, frequently with a prominent sidebar. On its blog, Atilus posed a not-always-hypothetical question to illustrate the problem: Would you rather trust a doctor who’s undergone rigorous training or people who spend time in health-related chatrooms or an intern who blogs about heart health? That’s a big oversimplification, given that Wiki entries are supposed to be double-sourced and edited. But even when that works, it’s not even close to ground truth.
Granted, Wikipedia isn’t the only source of content that’s creeps into everything, ubiquitous and unavoidable. It could be your mom or The New York Times. What gives Wikipedia a central place in data heaven is that popular algorithms that lead us around by the nose go to the site to learn. AI reinforces whatever biases are put in front of them. “Big data processes codify the past,” writes Kathy O’Neil in her book Weapons of Math Destruction.
So if historically scientists have been a certain sort of man, that’s what makes history—literally. It puts you in the loop. If you’re not on Wikipedia, you’re out of the loop for AI, Google, and the rest. As one woman scientist put it, “the Wiki Google loop is a noose.”