"1948 Palestinian Exodus" article talk page

Five straightforward principles constitute the structure, community, and ideology of Wikipedia. Namely, the Five Pillars:

1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (and therefore requires verifiable information and reliable sources; should not be used for purposes of promotion or hearsay, etc.)
2. Wikipedia adheres to the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) standard
3. Wikipedia’s content is free, meaning anyone can edit it and use the content and no single person owns the information
4. Wikipedia’s code of conduct calls for an atmosphere of mutual respect and not of exclusivity (e.g. the don’t bite the newbies guideline) and the assumption that everyone is acting in good faith
5. Wikipedia has no other “firm rules” than these, only guidelines.

These rules and the ongoing development of various Wikipedia articles remain relatively hidden. That is, most people visit Wikipedia in order to read – not edit – the information. When pulling back the curtain of open and decentralized collaboration, however, a completely different environment is revealed. More interesting than standards of neutrality, verifiability/reliability, notability, and conflict of interest are how these standards are applied, violated, and enforced amongst editors and in articles concerning controversial topics.

Not only are all edits of an article saved in its history but they are also contested in its talk page. Accordingly, the more contentious a subject, the more extended its disputes and the longer its discussion/talk page. Wikipedia, though open to all, has certain measures in place to deal with article conflicts. Most significantly, “administrators” are chosen to be part of a vigilant group of core Wikipedians with greater access and authority about changes to articles; in this way, Wikipedia indeed has a hierarchy of users. Though Pillar #3 holds that anyone can edit information on Wikipedia, a select group of users maintain the power to review and oversee these edits. Last semester, my Globalizing Social Activism & the Power of the Media professor, explained that Wikipedia has approximately 41,393 contributors and about 1,000 active administrators for the millions of English language articles.

A guest lecturer in my Globalizing Social Activism course, Zachary Metz, extensively analyzed one particular Wikipedia article of conflict – the “1948 Palestinian Exodus.” At the time, a notice (dated February 2009) appeared at the top of the article and stated, “The neutrality of this article is disputed…Please see the discussion on the talk page.” Considering the divisiveness of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the lecturer explained that this particular page had been in dispute since 2003. That notice is now no longer on the page. Looking at the current talk page, this one article has amassed nine archives (each one of interminably long length, full of discussions and back-and-forth debates), but some level of neutrality seems to have prevailed. The page also prominently features the participation of WikiProject Palestine and WikiProject Israel in the development of the content.

Sure, people can question Wikipedia’s firm goal of neutrality and hierarchical processes of arbitration, but at its best, Wikipedia requires dialogue and interaction between people of conflicting beliefs. It may take six years to complete an article on the “1948 Palestinian Exodus,” but if conflicting sides can reach Consensus, isn’t that archived debate ultimately productive and promising? In the Berkman Center‘s interview with Andrew Lih, David Weinberger quotes Wikipedia’s founder, Jimmy Wales, as saying, “To me, an article is neutral if people have stopped editing it…if they’ve stopped arguing about it.” If that’s the case, the “1948 Palestinian Exodus” serves as a complex case study in Wikipedia conflict resolution and NPOV.

Jimmy Wales spoke at a conference I attended earlier this month and asserted that “openness is not the enemy of quality.” In other words, Wikipedia functions through user collaboration (as well as administrator oversight), as the facilitator of dialogue even in the face of deep-seated conflict. Regarding highly controversial articles, this collaboration gives way to open discussion and debate, archived as a virtual, encyclopedic history for all to read.

• Previous Entry: Artists, Artists, Artists…Piracy, Piracy Piracy
• Next Entry: My everyday infringements