Safety in numbers as Greek Wikipedia grows
The Greek version of Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia written exclusively by users, already has some 20,000 entries. The site kicked off in 2003 with just one writer, but today it publishes some 30 texts a day and has 50 regular writers. Wikipedia, a project aimed at becoming the first truly open online encyclopedia, was created by a group of volunteers who have continued to support the project today. The Greek version has eight staff members who work on the site for a few hours each day on a volunteer basis, crosschecking the information posted and editing and screening new entries. The most common problem they run into, according to one of the first Greek Wikipedia writers, Constantinos Staboulis, is that entries are often direct copies from other websites; this is against the regulations of the website, which requires original work. Nicknamed «Geraki» on the site, Staboulis believes that most writers enter information about a subject that they have a personal interest in publishing. «We have texts about almost every neighborhood in Patras, but nothing about any city in China,» he says. For the screenings staff, who prefer to use their user names rather than reveal their true identities, their greatest reward working on the site is the information and knowledge they glean, more so because they have to read up on a subject from different sources in order to ensure that the information posted is correct. CeeKey edits some 20 texts daily, spending two to three hours on them. A physics major, he edits scientific texts. «I try to edit those that have something to do with my own area of study. I’m not trying to be a know-it-all. If I’m not familiar with a subject, I’ll pass it on to another member of the staff.» The eight editors frequently come under attack from the writers of the texts. FocalPoint says: «We get a reaction to almost every decision we make, such as removing a piece or correcting something, or even barring a user from making entries,» he says. The smooth operation of the site is upset every time a «hot» or controversial issue arises in current affairs, as it is inevitably followed by a flood of contradictory information. According to Badseed, these issues are normally related to religion, ideology or politics, but also to modern Greek history. «Because of the open character of the site, and its increasing dynamics and breadth, some try to use Wikipedia as a forum for propaganda, a means of promoting certain views or even as a vehicle for advertising,» he says. He also adds that the number of people writing for the site is one of the best ways of restricting this kind of usage, even though there are measures in place to exclude such activities from the site. «As the participation of people with different points of view increases, we will see a reduction in the number of people using the site for propaganda or pushing a personal agenda,» he says. Scientists who use Wikipedia agree that it is a site that can develop into a very useful tool, yet they express their reservations over the quality of articles on highly specialized subjects. Astrophysicist Dimitris Nanopoulos says that he uses Wikipedia frequently and is so far pleased with the results: «Whenever my team has had to cross-check certain information, it has not found any serious errors in Wikipedia. I am a bit skeptical about the scientific articles, but, I must confess, I have used the website for other areas of research and have been satisfied. It offers a direct source of information which, with the right level of quality control, can prove to be a very useful source of general knowledge.» Professor Nikos Lygeros, who is writing about genocide, finds the Greek Wikipedia more reliable than other versions regarding his field of study. He believes that when the criteria are quantitative, it hurts the quality of information. «A prime example is the entry for ‘genocide.’ While the Armenian genocide has been recognized in France since 2001, the French version of Wiki had accepted entries from revisionist elements who questioned the genocide. The result is that under the same entry you find conflicting points of view. The outcome is simple; the user cannot use the information on Wiki because it has been tainted by misinformation. The absence of a certified committee renders Wiki a vulnerable source,» says Lygeros.
