In reference to McHenry’s article, it is clear to see why he made those spiteful accusations. Firstly, he was the editor-in-chief of Encyclopedia Britannica; a clear competitor of Wikipedia. Secondly, his accusations, although unpleasant, do hold some merit. It is rather inconceivable that a reliable encyclopedia can be created by common citizens, the majority of whom are not scholars. Yet, for some reason, contrary to popular belief, Wikipedia does work relatively effectively. As seen through my case study on the rowing website, most of my additions were edited or deleted quickly. The article, Internet Encyclopedias go head to head, on news@nature.com compares the unexpected similarities between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica.

The results of the comparative study of Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica are relatively surprising. Author, Jim Giles, poses the most commonly asked question; “if anyone can edit entries, how do users know if Wikipedia is as accurate as established sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica?” Critics have collated a catalogue of articles from Wikipedia that contain falsities and omit pivotal pieces of information. But according to the expert-led investigation conducted by nature.com – “these high-profile examples are the exception rather than the rule” (http://www.nature.com). Nature collected 42 entries on Science, from Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica. From the 42 entries the differences were only slight; “the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three” (http://www.nature.com). The greatest criticism of Wikipedia, is not so much about the errors, but rather the flaws in structure and writing. According to Tom Panelas- an editor of Britannica - “the articles are poorly written…they need a good editor” (http://www.nature.com).

IBM conducted a similar study, focusing on accuracy of articles and the presence of vandalism. The study concluded that although vandalism did occur commonly, any acts of defacement were repaired quickly by a single click from another user. This was proven in my earlier case study of vandalism. The transparency of changes allows acts of vandalism to be detected and corrected within minutes (Benkler, 2006: 74). Collaborative peer production is a puzzling success. How could it be, that thousands of ordinary contributors could be just as effective and reliable as a single elite professional?

Wikipedia is collaborative peer production in its purest form. By studying Wikipedia, one can study the process of collaborative peer production. Wikipedia relies explicitly on the contribution of large groups of geographically dispersed people. Through my case study, it is clear to see that Wikipedia is relatively effective. The participants of Wikipedia are in control of content and corrections – the system operators and server host have the power to block repeated vandals, but this is rarely enforced. It is the participants themselves, that “commonly follow, and enforce, a few basic policies that seem essential to keeping the project running smoothly and productively”(Benkler, 2006: 73). Few can comprehend the logic of collaborative peer production. If anyone can edit a project, then the project is open to inconsistencies and errors. However, as seen through the earlier case studies, any errors are dealt with relatively quickly. The success of collaborative peer production is quite surprising; “this success occurs not in a tightly knit community with many social relations to reinforce the sense of common purpose…but in a large and geographically dispersed group of otherwise unrelated participants” (Benkler, 2006: 72). This is why collaborative peer production is a phenomenon. Collaborative peer production relies on the discipline of participants to abide by social norms. Wikipedia has been mercilessly attacked by its critics. Apart from the usual errors and inconsistencies, Wikipedia has been accused of adding political spin to controversial articles; “in 2007, the Wikipedia article on then-Montana senator Conrad Burns was edited by his own staff, causing political scandal among his constituents” (http://en.wikipedia.org). These sorts of additions can cause serious repercussions in society through political contest. As mentioned earlier though, these high-profile cases are often exceptions rather than the rules. Despite attracting controversy, Wikipedia has served as an educational tool. The benefits of Wikipedia seem to outweigh the detriments. Due to the open-content and collaborative contribution; “there is no reason that Wikipedia’s content ever needs to…sit on someone’s shelf, gathering dust, as traditional encyclopedias have done. It’s because [of the] open content that the world is free to continue to develop it” (http://meta.wikimedia.org). As Wikipedia has grown “it has developed more elaborate spaces for…conflict resolution. It has developed structures for mediation, and if that fails, arbitration, of disputes about particular articles (Benkler, 2006: 73). As an employee of Jimmy Wales – founder of Wikipedia - Larry Sanger states that Wikipedia does not function solely on the common contributor, “article quality is determined by standards enforced by the best and brightest of a particular community--not by the worst, most transient elements of that community” (http://en.wikipedia.org).