Leaders | Online encyclopedias

Happy Birthday, Wikipedia

Lessons from the success of a different sort of tech titan

WIKIPEDIA IS CLEAR on the matter: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Yet on this particular question, few people seem to agree with the world’s most popular encyclopedia. The site approaches its 20th birthday, on January 15th, as the 13th-most-visited place on the web, offering more than 55m articles written in 300 languages. Worries about fake news, filter bubbles and market power have soured public opinion on the Utopian promises of the early internet. But Wikipedia—written by amateurs, freely available to all—stands as the great exception. It is the dream that worked.

Or at least, mostly worked. Wikipedia’s crowdsourced model remains vulnerable to the occasional hoaxer or chancer. In August it emerged that many articles on the Scots version of the site had been written by an American editor who, by his own admission, was not really a speaker of the dialect. Nor is it free from honest mistakes. That can cause problems: for better or worse, powerful platforms from social-media firms to the World Health Organisation have come to treat it as a wellspring of truth online (see article). All the same, the world is much better off for its existence.

This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline "Diderot’s dream"

Trump’s legacy: The shame and the opportunity

From the January 7th 2021 edition

Discover stories from this section and more in the list of contents

Explore the edition

More from Leaders

Japan is wrong to try to prop up the yen

Supporting the currency is expensive and futile

The wider lessons of Scotland’s political turmoil

Humza Yousaf’s resignation is the latest in a string of setbacks


Why leaving the ECHR would be a bad idea for Britain

The next litmus test of Tory purity