My colleague Karim Lakhani and I have just finished the first Harvard Business School case on Wikipedia. Like Wikipedia itself, this case is available for free online and published under the GFDL.
It’s focal point is the articles for deletion process on Wikipedia’s "Enterprise 2.0" article, but I’ll use this focal point and the other information in the case for a much broader classroom discussion. Using this case, I’ll talk with students about:
- Why Nupedia (Wikipedia’s more formal predecessor) failed to gather momentum, and why Wikipedia has gathered so much.
- Whether Wikipedia’s highly egalitarian and freeform editing processes and policies yield good results and, if so, how this happens.
- How decision rights are allocated in Wikipedia.
- The merits of the Inclusionist and Deletionist perspectives.
- Whether Wikipedia really has become a "post-revolutionary Bolshevik Soviet, with an inscrutable central power structure wielding control over a legion of workers."
- Whether the Wikipedia community practices the ‘right’ level of deference to the opinions and judgments of subject matter ‘experts.’
- If Wikipedia’s policies are being correctly followed, what the fate of the "Enterprise 2.0" article should be.
Please feel free to leave a comment here (the online case itself has no comment capability) or, if you’d prefer a more private channel, email me with your feedback about this case. Karim and I would like to hear what you think about it, and about the issues it raises.
We’d also like to thank HBS’s Senior Multimedia Producer Melissa Dailey for being an outstanding colleague and collaborator on this project. This case would have looked very amateurish without her.
{ 20 comments… read them below or add one }
For non-HBS people, it might be good to explain what a “case” is intended to do – otherwise, the “Conclusion” seems weirdly truncated -
“As the deadline neared, those interested in the fate of Wikipedia’s Enterprise 2.0 article wondered whether it would be kept, deleted, or merged into another article.”
It confused me to see that abrupt ending, until I realized it’s HBS case format, which ends on a cliffhanger.
Just read the case – found it pretty interesting. I was researching the wikipedia culture a year back, and was surprised to learn at the time just how process oriented the inner workings are, and how it is no longer truly an “everyone’s input is valid” kind of place. I remember back in the day us “geeks” spoke of it as a “Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” in the making, but the focus on notability has kept out some more frivolous but valid material.
I read through the deletion page discussion, and was a bit frustrated at the outcome, people seemed to not be fully answering one another’s questions. I can understand how the AfD process can chase away frustrated contributors.
At least the Enterprise Social Software page references the contention, and gives links to the original articles.
This is a fascinating case study. I would imagine that, given the nature of how a wiki works, Wikipedia offers some information that would never be available in an encyclopedia.
What I wonder is why educational institutions are so quick to dismiss it as a valid reference point for research.
Wikipedia is a Web-based, free-content encyclopedia.
The issues that are raised to discuss are worth consideration. Its going to be useful if the discussion is available for public.
Hi,
Both of you have done a wonderful job. You have chosen a good platform to share your knowledge and information with others. Most of the users prefer to collect information form Wikipedia because it provides current and updated information about different issues. In this way people can get detailed knowledge about Wikipedia.
I found your article on HBS Case on Wikipedia quite interesting. It has gathered all the important points about wikipedia for discussion. I am looking forward to hear more from you.
I am always keen to know more about WikipediaÂ’s role as an interactive platform to share information and research with other users. More about it will be very useful for me.
Wikipedia is an important authority site. Since it dominates the SERPS, spammers frequently try to spam Wikipedia with their links and search engine optimizers too edit Wikipedia for their own interests. Therefore a new policy this year gets introduced across Wikipedia to “nofollow” all external links, to prevent link gain passes from Wikipedia to any external site. This new policy will certainly change the dynamics and the motivations of spammers and SEOs alike.
Since Wikipedia is the topic of discussion here, so many questions will come related to this. Now, it is the most widely used media for current and updated information. This Harvard Business School case on Wikipedia is quite interesting to read. Thanks for sharing this information with us.
very interesting case study.keen to know more about Wikipedia.thanks for sharing.waiting for more updates.
Yes, indeed Andy. The no follow policy is in place now. But it will take a while to get into the system of spammers cause we still see places where even with the no-follow meta tags implemented you still see irrelevant posts left with a link. Information contribution is a good thing and if one leaves information with a link then it is acceptable but abusing a service needs measures like this. The entire Wiki service has been no followed.
It’s amazing how Nupedia failed: “After 18 months and $250,000 in expenditures, Nupedia had 12 completed articles”. That policy of every collaborator being an experts and with PHDs is now “alive” with Citizendium. If you ask me, that project is not going to have a little bit of Wikipedia’s success.
well I certainly found the case study extremely informative. Stumbled across your site while browsing for information on Wikipedia. The cases study did help me out and I wanted to thank you guys. appreciate the work. cheers
very interesting case study.Wikipedia is very informative site.If i want to research any topic than first i read it on the Wikipedia.
Thanks for the sharing
minimalist design into four figures, but you can be well served with lower-priced versions as well. During our journey to every New York http://www.chase.com City showroom, we noted pricing and availabilities for this popular item.Of the 2,050 locations we visited, 368 offered furniture, 110 offered contemporary furniture, and 88 carried platform beds. Here are 8 platform beds under $600.
I have to admit that i haven't used wikipedia much, I was under the impression the it was editable by anyone so that has left me to question the validity of the article found there
Very interesting. I have always felt that the Wikipedia is the best place to learn about anything because it has up-to-date information due to manual editing of the contents.
Interesting article I feel wikipedia is doing well primarily because of its open editable content wherein anyone can edit content and is moderated.
One thing I noticed is that the content is always genuine and can be trusted even though its open and available for editing to everyone.
I Think wikipedia is a good source but it is not entirely reliable. There are many edited sections but some people clearly are not experts. I would use it as information site but would not cite the data as it is not all accurate at times.
I Think wikipedia is a good source but it is not entirely reliable. There are many edited sections but some people clearly are not experts. I would use it as information site but would not cite the data as it is not all accurate at times.