The Wiki Witch of the West

I admit, I use the Wikipedia--the free, online encyclopedia--rather a lot. However, one thing about it has kind of bugged me, which is its basis as a "wiki" information source, meaning that its entries are created and updated by whoever wants to create and update them. The authors are usually anonymous. I've had issues with the Wikipedia in the past, wherein it turned out that information contained within it was not always accurate. As a result, I use it cautiously, just for basic background material and I don't quote from it directly without getting confirmation elsewhere. After all, the people who write Wikipedia entries need not have any particular expertise or knowledge in what it is they're writing. That limits its usefulness to me.

However, I just read this USA Today editorial that casts a far more diabolical light on at least one of the Wikipedia's anonymous contributors:

"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960's. For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven."
— Wikipedia

This is a highly personal story about Internet character assassination. It could be your story.

I have no idea whose sick mind conceived the false, malicious "biography" that appeared under my name for 132 days on Wikipedia, the popular, online, free encyclopedia whose authors are unknown and virtually untraceable. There was more...

The Internet is a great free information resource that is extremely fast, free, convenient, and free. However, the price we pay for that speed, convenience, and economy, is often accuracy. Yes, I'm shocked, shocked, to discover that there is bad information circulating on the Internet, but I think that sites like Wikipedia legitimize that bad information. The metaphor that seems most appropriate is that the Internet is like the people you usually encounter in bars (epitomized by Cliff on Cheers, perhaps) who spout out all kinds of "information," the veracity of which is often in question and should be verified via a reliable source before repeating it in a serious setting. Unfortunately, on the Internet, those "reliable sources" are often confused with the "drunk" sources.

Yes, in theory the "wiki" concept is a self-correcting one, but I still think that, for definitive sources of knowledge, you need some kind of overseeing authority. Or, at the very least, a name and credentials associated with the information.