Dick Clark’s recent blog post discusses the controversy over Wikipedia.

An encyclopedia that anyone can edit, critics argue, is one that is vulnerable to endless mistakes.

What critics to often fail to recognize is that, while subject to error, an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, is one that also has the potential for endless corrections. Compared to traditional encyclopedias, once errors are in print the costs of correction are extremely high.

Wikipedia’s reflection of market dynamics is most easily observed in what many people view as the project’s weakest areas: obscure articles which draw little traffic. In articles about third-rate garage bands and other topics of limited interest, one will often find factual and typographical errors at a much higher rate than in high-traffic articles like “England” or “Barry Bonds.” The much higher demand for information about the latter topics means that many more eyes will be combing those much-demanded articles for mistakes.

The world will never be perfect, the human race’s understanding of the world will never be perfect, the law that governs the world will never be perfect, but processes that expose and correct imperfections are preferable to institutions that stagnate and exacerbate errors.

Whenever a content dispute does arise between editors on the “talk” pages that accompany each article, there are a host of dispute resolution options available to resolve them. The community has created the “Third Opinion” board, where editors at loggerheads can request an outside perspective on a disagreement. There is also the “Request for Comment” process, where one editor may request formal oversight by the community at large, and particularly by veteran editors whose informed opinions usually carry more weight than those of new users. There are also the Mediation and Arbitration Committees, which are for solving more complex, ongoing disputes, and who actually refer to past precedents in making judgments.

Thanks for the great post Dick.