Wikipedia's Technological Obscurification: Three ways Wikipedia keeps 99% of the population from participating

We've been talking a lot about the Wikipedia recently here at calacanis.com, and I wanted to make my podcast from last week a little more clear. I spoke of technological obsurification--the process of using obscure technology to keep people from participating.

Having spent seven days at the Wikimania and hacking days last year in Boston I've learned a lot about the insular culture of Wikipedia, how they make decisions, and how they block participation. Yes, you read that last part correctly. The Wikipedia is currently designed to lower participation so it is easier to manage.

Now, I'm not saying it's wrong to limit participation in Wikipedia--perhaps that's what necessary to keep the project on track. However, I think we should be really honest about the fact that Wikipedia is not an open system--at least not open in the sense that anyone can participate. Let's look at just three examples:

1. Wikipedia pages have become increasingly complex and Wikipedia doesn't support a WYSIWYG editor. WYSIWYG stands for "what you see is what you get," and that means that as you edit if you make something bold or underline you see bold or underline--just like Microsoft Word. Wikipedia doesn't use a WYSIWYG because if they did more people could edit the pages--people without technology skills--and that would make the entire system collapse--at least according to the folks at the Wikipedia conference I attended.

For example, in this image you can see what it's like to edit the George W. Bush page:



As you can see you need code in Wiki Markup language in order to edit this page.

2. The Wikipedia uses "Discussion pages" to reach consensus, and these pages are also coded in mediaWiki so that 99% of people can't figure them out. Here is what the discussion page for George W. Bush looks like, and as you can see it is much more complicated than a Threaded Message board. The Wikipedia could easily have message boards by now--just like they could easily have a WYSIWYG editor--but by adding it there would be too much participation and the system would collapse.



3. The Wikipeda uses IRC chat, which 99% of folks don't know how to use, in order to discuss the inner workings of Wikipedia. IRC chat typically requires client software and to use it you have to learn how to use all kinds of archaic commands. The Wikipedia could easily use web-based chat, but it doesn't because--again--it would create too much participation and Wikipedia would collapse. Here is a look at the IRC director page--your mom ain't gonna figure this one out.



Those are just three simple examples of how the Wikipedia community block participation through its use of obscure technology. Is this wrong? Perhaps not, but we should all be clear that Wikipedia is edited by and run by folks with significant technical knowledge.

Was this intentional? I don't think so, I think the Wikipedia has grown so quickly and has had a lack of resources for so long (don't get me started on the advertising debate that would solve this) that they have not been able to keep up with the growth.

I'm convinced that the Wikipedia is so understaffed that if they did provide simple message boards, a WYSI editor, and web-based chat rooms, that they would be so inundated with participation that no one would be able to keep up.

This is why it is so critical that the Wikipedia take the steps that Firefox/Mozzila has to make the organization stable. There should--and could be--30 to 50 full-time developers at Wikipedia getting paid to clean up the software and fix the systems, but because some folks don't want even OPT-IN advertising there aren't.

As the Wikipedia becomes more and more important, it is also becoming more and more insular. Participation is getting harder and harder for normal folks, and the system is very close to the breaking point in my estimation.

Now is the time to act to increase participation and access to the system in my mind.

Tags: firefox, jimbo walles, JimboWalles, jimmy walles, JimmyWalles, mediawiki, mozilla, wiki, wikipedia, wikis

Recent Posts

Reader Comments

(Page 1 of 2)

1. Much better Jason. You've distilled out the correct essence of your critique and framed it in a way that might actually lead toi something constructive.

Thanks, I feel like my comment to your previous post was heard.

Posted at 7:28PM on Feb 20th 2007 by steve gelmis

2. Jason, are you aware that you're welcome to download your own copy of the complete content of Wikipedia and start your own Calapedia? There's nothing stopping you breaking down the technology barriers your perceive. I think the licensing may even allow you to add opt-in advertising.

Really, you are making a lot of noise, but I don't think you've ever shown that any of your suggestions would actually improve Wikipedia -- it's doing pretty well by most criteria. For example, would the value of lowering the technology barriers be a net positive? Yes more people could contribute, but would this be outweighed by spam/disinformation issues? Spam is still an open problem, and on a site as big as Wikipedia a pretty massive open problem.

Posted at 7:51PM on Feb 20th 2007 by Anson

3. Couldn't agree with you more -- and that's after over a year of spending immersed in a wikimedia-powered project, SmallBusiness.com. We are currently hacking a wysiwyg interface for those who want to contribute -- and several other features -- so that real people can add to it. I believe I have blogged before that wikimedia reminds me of the story (probably a myth, but well-worn) of how the layout of a typewriter keyboard was designed to slow down typists so they would not jam up the rods holding the type keys. While the rap Wikipedia gets is "anyone can edit it" so there is a lot of crap on it, in reality, only a a geek or someone with a mad passion for a topic would endure the learning curve necessary to tag-up an attractive entry on Wikipedia. There are some good examples of wikis other than Wikipedia using mediawiki that have made the process easier (and probably some other language versions than English, for all I know): WikiHow.com for instance, uses a form template for fill-in-the-blank creation of wiki entries. And TaxAlmanac.org has a means of starting entries in much the same way as one would start a forum thread.

Posted at 8:16PM on Feb 20th 2007 by Rex Hammock

4. Shorter Jason:

1) Hi, you've created arguably the most successful community of user generated content in history.

2) You're doing it all wrong.

Posted at 8:17PM on Feb 20th 2007 by Flailey

5. Flailey: You are 100% correct... Wikipedia has done an AMAZING job. We all love it and it's the best job ever done.

However, what do you think about the three suggestions I've made to open up the Wikipedia to normal people?

Posted at 8:40PM on Feb 20th 2007 by Jason

6. Obscurification is not a real word. Obfuscation is a word. But, it isn't the right word either. "Difficult" might be the best way to describe it.

Re: the Point... interesting. Communities are very difficult to manage. I couldn't imagine trying to manage the wikipedia community with 10 staff people.

Posted at 9:21PM on Feb 20th 2007 by peter caputa

7. Peter: I made the word up.

Posted at 9:33PM on Feb 20th 2007 by Jason

8. I agree with you to some extent. Still using IRC is hard to justify frankly.

But I think there's an overarching concept here that you don't share, but you have to respect given how successful it has been. That concept is that it should require *effort* to alter the wikipedia. The idea that 6 billion people are empowered to edit something is problematic. They've chosen to limit that number artificially by making it overly complicated. That has drawbacks, but it has major advantages. I think the burden is on you to explain why it's better that the community be expanded to those people who don't have the inclination to master a complicated system (another language, essentially) for making edits. You can't just say "democracy" -- sometimes real unfettered "democracy" sucks. Take a glance around the world sometime and notice that utter and complete freedom from regulation looks more like Lagos, Nigeria than Switzerland.

Posted at 9:58PM on Feb 20th 2007 by Flailey

9. Is Wikipedia really Web 2.0? Or is it more Web 1.6?

Someone needs to step in at the helm and renew the energy behind the technology and the vision.

Posted at 1:38AM on Feb 21st 2007 by Kin Lane

10. I was really impressed by your podcast on this. I share your views on it as well as the passion with which you delivered them. It is intellectually dishonest to claim to be open when you need a master's degree in mediaWiki to be able to edit or even post into the discussion.

Then there's the matter of it being incorrect to correct factual errors about oneself, resulting in the Microsoft PR disaster awhile back. Shelley Powers blogged about this too, asking someone to please go in and correct errors on her Wikipedia entry since it wouldn't be right for her to do it. How absurd! Who better to know the facts of their own bio than the person themself?!

Wikipedia is a great tool, but it is definitely a closed community and your coined term "obscurification" is perfect to describe it.

Posted at 4:20AM on Feb 21st 2007 by Karoli

11. I *thought* I was at the same conference, but perhaps not :). At the conference I attended, the keynote and several of the presentations made clear that it was important to get WYSIWYG up and running on Wikipedia in order to open it up to more people. In other words, while I agree that it is a barrier, I haven't encountered the kind of anti-WYSIWYG attitude you suggest. (It is a difficult thing to do, since Wikipedia entries contain both structure and content that is unique to the site, but it is doable.)

Isn't #2 really #1b? That is, if #1 is "It's hard to edit pages," #2 is "It's hard to edit pages devoted to discussion."

I've never used the IRC channels, and the text that leads in your examples is as obscure to me as it is to the 99% of people who contribute to Wikipedia. In practice, you can go to Wikipedia and enter something as simple as what I've entered in this box, and other people will clean it up for you. There are a dedicated lot of people who make it their life to know how to format wiki-text, and who will do that.

So, I guess the question is whether its more important to open it up to Wikifiers or Content Creators. You are right--there are tech barriers to Content Creators who might be faced with some weird markup when they click "edit," but I think you have overstated your case. Most can effectively ignore most of the wiki markup, as well as the IRC, and still be extremely effective contributors.

Posted at 8:06AM on Feb 21st 2007 by Alex Halavais

12. It's also worth noting that it only took two or three hardcore sociopaths to make Ward's Wiki a hotbed of flames and totally unreadable in sections.

Wikipedia has certainly avoided keeping a certain level of psychosis off the main pages(read the Talk:Scientology page, for examples).

Posted at 8:52AM on Feb 21st 2007 by T. Derscheid

13. I would suggest that the high barrier to entry is a good thing; while it is not necessarily true that having the knowledge to edit an entry means the knowledge you are adding is correct, it does at least mean that you've taken the time to learn how to use the system. Wikipedia does not need to become another www.urbandictionary.com . Elitism, I think, can be justifiable provided there are paths to entry afforded to anyone interested in putting in the effort to learn and properly use the system.

Posted at 11:42AM on Feb 21st 2007 by Neil

14. Jason, you say you want to do something with your next start-up that affects everyone everywhere on the net all the time. You can see the breaks in wikipedia, and after listening to your podcast, so can I. The internet has always been about sharing information and you are quite right to say that although wikipedia does that well, it is indeed broken in terms of the UI/usability. But I would go further than that. It is also broken in terms of the fact that it is purely text and image based information in a time when audio (eg podcasting) and video are gaining so much importance on the web. I envisage a wiki that everyone can get involved with (not just uber-geeks), that has video, audio, text, images, forums... a bit like the internet in its entirety as it is today, but focused on univeral quality knowledge and media distillation... you may have the ability to produce the next generation wikipedia and the future of the net, and that sure as hell would knock wikipedia off the net no. 1 spot in a matter of a few years. Why not go for it? Stop knocking wikipedia (they probably aren't going to fix it) and scratch that itch!

Posted at 4:38PM on Feb 21st 2007 by Ben2

15. Jason,

We discussed a similar issue last night at Third Tuesdays, and Ed Lee was kind enough to point us to your blog (http://bloggingmebloggingyou.wordpress.com/2007/02/21/wiki-wild-wild-west/).
The problem of elitism is not limited to coding alone. Distribution of Internet access, around the world and domestically, is not nearly equal along demographic, sociographic or national lines, which affect does affect participation in page creation.
Also, an open PR practitioner would theoretically have to express a perspective on a talk pages against several opposing parties.
Unfortunately, truth is not determined by popularity. But the content of most public access Wikis are.




Posted at 5:09PM on Feb 21st 2007 by Omar Ha-Redeye

16. Much better! I like Wikipedia very much also...

Posted at 5:22PM on Feb 21st 2007 by Nina

17. I agree. I tried to put in {{wiki tag}} that flagged inappropriate use of 2nd person. I can hack html. I can code. Still, it too me 20 frustrating minutes to find the instructions how to do this (Yeah, I know, I should have fixed the article itself).

Even for seasoned hackers, the wiki format is poorly documented over scattered pages. And the obscure stuff isn't there. There are probably lots of great biologists that can't impart their knowledge to the world because they can't find the {{Taxobox}} anywhere in the docs. Assuming they can find the docs in the first place.

Posted at 5:51PM on Feb 21st 2007 by Bervert Boover

18. This is an old argument not confined to Wikipedia. While improvements could certainly be made to the Wikipedia editor interface, people who work in it a lot (ie the people you actually want to be editing Wikipedia) will always take productivity over ease of use. Visual Basic was easier for people who didn't know how to write software, FrontPage was easier for people that didn't know about site development.

For the vast number of people who only make text level edits to Wikipedia, the current interface is fine. For the people finessing the site, the wiki markup is productive. The hard part of Wikipedia articles isn't learning the markup, its understanding the structure and semantics of a good article, WYSIWYG won't solve that.

Posted at 5:03AM on Feb 22nd 2007 by nick

19. You're still walking around to put advertising on Wikipedia pages.


But aren't there are some more problems to prevent people from participating? Remember they were collecting money to support Wikipedia? Remember, how long did it take? So why was it so long? I think it took more than one month. Why?

Posted at 2:40AM on Feb 23rd 2007 by Shimon

20. An interesting contribution to the debate. I think your points #1 and #2 are the same: "wikipedia needs a WYSIWYG editor to help increase participation". Until recently I agreed but attending WikiSym in Odense last summer I became attracted to the idea of a simplified markup that could be used across all wikis - WikiCreole - http://www.wikicreole.org/ - give it a look.

My impression is that you see advertising as the only answer to enabling the wikipedia organisation to grow enough to respond to demands and you hint as much (about "not getting you started"). Do you have a link to anything you've written on this topic?

Posted at 11:35AM on Feb 24th 2007 by Mark Gaved

| 1 | 2 | Last | Next 20 Comments

Add your comments

Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry: inappropriate or purely promotional comments may be removed. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.

Your name (required):

Your email address (required, will not be shown to the public):

Your site’s URL (optional):

Do you want us to remember your personal information for next time?
   
Add your comments:

Toro, a bulldog

Hello. My name is Jason.
I'm the CEO of Mahalo.com, a human powered search engine. I was previously the co-founder of Weblogs, Inc. with Brian Alvey, and the GM of Netscape.

I'm currently on the board of social shopping site ThisNext. You might remember me from my days as editor and CEO of the Silicon Alley Reporter magazine.

Mike Arrington and I partnered on the TechCrunch40 event in September. We're going to do it again next year.

This is my blog, this is where I live. You should also listen to my podcast.


Add me on Facebook
Add me on Twitter
Add me on MySpace
Add me on LinkedIn
Add me on Delicious
Add me on Pownce
Jason Calacanis on tumblr
Add me on mixx
Add me on Flickr



follow JasonCalacanis at http://twitter.com

www.flickr.com
jasoncalacanis' photos More of jasoncalacanis' photos







View Jason Calacanis's profile
on LinkedIn

Shopcast powered by
www.ThisNext.com

Daily Reads

Most Commented On (7 days)

Recent Comments

RSS NEWSFEEDS