The topic of Wikipedia is not new. Many people use this online amalgamation of thoughts and opinions as if it were an encyclopedia or learned treatise. In 2006. The Register discussed students receiving failing grades after citing the site. They reportedly wrote in angst to the founder of Wikipedia seeking solace or help. The founder reportedly had "no sympathy" and agreed that the site should not be cited in academic work: "you're in college; don't cite the encyclopedia." Of course, students have been trained for years to avoid encyclopedias, but Wikipedia has challenges beyond that of Britannica, World Book. or others.
This blog has previously noted the reliance of our nation's courts on Wikipedia. If there is anything more embarrassing than some student failing to understand and appreciate the risk of information manipulation in an open-source, free-edit platform, it is that some educated judge would fail to recognize its risks. A recent Westlaw search of Florida revealed 31 opinions that reference Wikipedia. Each of Florida's appellate courts have made such a reference. There will soon be a new 6th District, and it will be interesting when its first Wiki-reference occurs.
One Court opinion notes how many languages are spoken in the United States (337!). One anchors a discussion of the television series The Saint. One is on the volume of blogs in the world, "300 million worldwide." One on the merits of grouping items or events in quantities of twelve. And one that concludes a certain truck is a "light truck" based on the Wikipedia definition. One wonders perhaps if some other literary reference would be equal or greater import instead of Wikipedia?
Wikipedia cites to the United States Census Bureau for the statistic on languages spoken in the United States. The Saint references page includes links to sources like IMDB and the British Film Institute. The Wikipedia page regarding blogs includes multiple links to various original data cites. The one regarding the number 12 has various notes about reference to 12, and is not unlike similar pages in publications such as Britannica Encyclopedia. The Wikipedia truck entry has no direct reference to an authoritative source, though 40 CFR 86.082-2 is cited elsewhere in the post. In each instance, examined, it appears that the court could have elected to reference a source as, or more, credible than Wikipedia and less subject to user manipulating or editing. Choosing between citation to federal law or Wikipedia in defining "light truck" might seem an easy choice?
In the broadest context, it is somewhat troublesome when courts go looking for information that the parties failed to include in the evidentiary record. The party(ies) failed to define "light truck" and so the judge or judges finds it necessary to dig for some definition in support of her/his/its conclusions. But, it is very troublesome when such a sleuthing includes Wikipedia. See The Internet, Evidence and Defamation (April 2015); Sleuthing Addressed Again (January 2018); and Internet, Evidence, and Admissibility (December 2019). Others have voiced cautions, including blogs, and more scholarly platforms.
The Wikipedia site is admittedly good business. One analysis claims that it attracted "40 billion page views every month" in 2021. The foundation that controls it reportedly spends one hundred fifty million dollars annually keeping it available, promoting it, and "growing the community and content." It is a massive repository of opinion and thought, and for some reason is often among the first listed results to Internet searches. Some believe that is caused by an algorithm that likes that there are many links in Wikipedia and the number of sites that reference it. By these cross-references, the math apparently perceives reliability or more.
The fact that Wikipedia is "open source" means that anyone can edit any definition or discourse. That has reportedly led to "edit wars" and "wiki fights." This has included disagreement over the spelling of aluminum, Kiev, and Sulphur. There have been disputes about the national origin of fictional characters, the dating of tropical storm Zeta, and the height of Andre the Giant. There have been disagreements about music, condiments, and more. The various "editors" have been collectively responsible for thousands of changes to the data in these conflicts of opinion. For edification, virtually anyone can become an "editor" for Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is back in the news recently due to our present economic recession (or not). Oxford Dictionary defines "recession" as
"a period of temporary economic decline during which trade and industrial activity are reduced, generally identified by a fall in GDP in two successive quarters."
Forbes describes this as " economist Julius Shiskin('s) . . . rule() of thumb." It also points to a different, more vague ("flexible") definition used by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). That Forbes article is an informative overview of various potential causes for recession. One noted is "excessive debt" and another is "too much inflation."
I used to lecture my classes about the national debt. I told them repeatedly in the early 21st century that trillion dollar debt figures were unsustainable and that the bill would soon come due. I was so wrong, and the debt has continued to grow unabated. CCN referred to the $22 Trillion debt as "terrifying" in 2019. The national debt clock now has it at $30 trillion and there is no sign of slowing.
Graph courtesy of CCN,
https://www.ccn.com/us-national-debt-terrifying-22-trillion-why-bitcoin-matters/
The inflation has made many headlines recently. EconomicsHelp.org ran a recent analysis and illustrated that inflation is not the worst it has ever been. But, the Associated Press reports that it is the worst it has been in 40 years. Forty years is a long time.
According to Pew Research, the millennial generation was "born between 1981 and 1996," and the next generation was born "from 1997 onward." Of working Americans, more than forty percent are in these two generations; they have never lived through inflation as pervasive as today's. Another third of the labor force is Gen X (born 1965-1980). In the Ford to Carter era (1976-1980), these workers were 11 to 15 years old, and likely remember little of that inflationary era forty years ago. Thus, about 70% of working Americans are perhaps in uncharted territory.
Thus, there is some evidence that a majority of American workers find themselves in the most inflationary times they have experienced or remember. They are confronted with an extensive and growing national debt. They are recovering from the most pervasive pandemic reaction since the 1918 flu (the HIV pandemic was serious, has killed more people, and been ongoing much longer; but, it did not see the shutdown of American commerce and consumption). In short, many are in somewhat uncharted territory from a personal experience perspective despite their having survived the bubble burst in 2008 (George W. Bush).
The Daily Mail reports that recently disagreement over the current economic situation found its way to the wonderful world of Wikipedia (no, that is not what the "www" stands for in your URL, that is "World Wide Web," I looked it up on Wikipedia). According to the Mail, the management at Wikipedia temporarily suspended the "edits to its 'recession' page." It seems that yet another "edit war" had begun over the definition of the word "recession." Parsing words is perhaps not new to the news. One linguist became famous for advising that “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is," according to Slate. But, no reference to that was found on Wikipedia.
The Mail article says that the "recession" Wikipedia "page was altered at least 47 times over a roughly 24-hour period." This frequency caused "an administrator" to lock the "unregistered users out until August." This editing was reportedly an effort of some to "argue the country is not in a recession by casting doubt on the word's definition." The Mail notes its "commonly agreed upon" definition of "two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth." But, in the end, that is the Mail's opinion, and ultimately of its editors. And, that may be the real point, or some of it.
The origin of expressions on Wikipedia may be more difficult to attribute. Certainly, one might determine the screenname someone assumes. The Mail reports that several Wikipedia "recession" edits were made by someone calling her/himself Soibangla. This included "rooting out any references to the commonly held definition of a recession," and substituting in one instance the opinion that "there is no global consensus on the definition of a recession." Who is Soibangla, how does one consider her/his/its credibility? The editors of the Mail, and other sites may be easier to determine.
In an attempt to maintain transparency and provide information, after Wikipedia "froze the edit" function, a warning was added that alerted users the content "may have been 'affected by a recent event.'" However, that warning no longer appears. There was a period for which those who control the site thought it pertinent to forewarn users.
Turning back to the substance, perhaps there is no global consensus on defining "recession." Perhaps there are other subjects on which there is no "global consensus." In that broad sense, there is perhaps room to debate a great many topics, although some people seem prone to take somewhat absolutist views, particularly from behind the anonymity of a keyboard. See Anonymity and Emotional Intelligence (July 2022)(Who is "Soibangla?" Google it). We are fortunate to have the First Amendment and the protections on free speech that it recognizes. There can be debate about definitions, and perhaps the Wiki-environment serves a great and noble purpose in facilitating that debate, dissent, and discussion? But does that somehow render the content there authoritative?
In the end, we are or are not in a recession, depending on the definition of the word you accept. But, this recent editing war event on the pages of Wikipedia might reinforce the potential that such records and opinions might be changed, edited, and even self-serving. The Orwellian idea of changing history comes to mind. This edit war is perhaps an important reminder for students tempted to cite Wikipedia as an authoritative source. That warning should perhaps be of even more import to courts and judges tempted to supplement the evidence at trial by reference to this group-managed Internet resource and its potential for error, self-interest, and manipulation.
