On Jan. 15, 2001, Wikipedia debuted with its first edit on HomePage, and from there was born a community of those on a quest for knowledge. Billed as a “free-content online encyclopedia,” the website has been a hub where one can search a specific topic, person, location, etc., and be met with a plethora of information via contributions from a community of volunteers.
Of course, Wiki websites were around well before 2001, but Wikipedia has evolved to stand the test of time, and that is, in large, due to the community of writers who contribute to its pages and the dedication of some of the most prominent editors across the internet. A common goal many share to get information in front of people across the world sits at the heart of Wikipedia, and we all know that knowledge is power.
So what would cause some of Wikipedia’s most prolific editors to leave the platform to craft their own website?
TikTok user and Wikipedia editor extraordinaire Ben, @bmacs001, spilled some tea, so to speak, about the Wikipedia editors who are hitting the road to create their own website. While there are many reasons that their mass exodus came about, two stand out as prominent reasons: objections to an important Wikipedia rule, and issues with the community of users on the platform.
“You can’t have primary sources, only secondary sources”
One of the most basic principles of Wikipedia is that primary sources aren’t allowed for citation purposes; only secondary sources can be used. And what’s a primary vs secondary source, and why does it matter? Wikipedia has an entire page dedicated to why this “no primary sources” policy is one of three pillars important to keeping the website to a specific standard, but here’s a TL;DR version: primary sources can’t easily be verified, because they contain too much individual research, and Wikipedia needs easily verifiable and totally reliable information to be added to their pages.
As Ben will explain, primary sources rely on a lot of self-done research, whereas secondary sources have already been fleshed out. As Wikipedia specifies, “If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it.” Wikipedia lists reliable (read also: secondary) sources such as peer-reviewed journals, books published by university presses, and mainstream newspapers as examples.
Ben speaks more about the frustrations of not being able to provide “original research” for pages on Wikipedia, and how that impacts specific communities more than others; for instance, those who work with Ben and who know a lot about roads.
“This is all well and good if you have topics that people want to cross-reference each other with, but nobody’s writing an article about friggin Virginia Route 967 — and so according to our enemies: ‘no newspaper sources,’ and also, you can’t just not cite Department of Transportation sources, they decide the f****** routes.”
Ben used an example of a Wikipedia editor checking a map for reference pertaining to an article, and being told that’s not allowed because it’s considered original research. Back to Ben’s original point: there aren’t a plethora of articles out there about specific routes, roads, etc., which has created quite a problem for the community Ben is a part of — and if you think about it, likely many other communities as well.
A museum collections manager agrees with Ben’s frustrations, calling the primary sources rule on Wikipedia the bane of their existence — and we get it. There has to be an increasingly upsetting feeling about wanting to get the information out, doing the work, but then not being able to use it if it hasn’t been reported on by a notable source first.
It’s evident that there are several communities where this issue prohibits a solid stream of information from being shared. Of course, there’s not just one reason this Wikipedia split is happening; several factors are at play here.
Wikipedia and notability
The idea of “notability” was the next thing Ben mentioned. Per Wikipedia, “On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article,” specifying that “Article and list topics must be notable, or ‘worthy of notice.’ Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity,” which may leave too much wiggle room, Ben asserts, for someone with a grudge, or someone frustrated about anything at all, could ding your work and question its validity. This has to be exhausting. In fact, an example was provided, and it almost made our eyes twitch:
“Then there’s the people that try to get us on notability. Boy, when I tell you that there is one person who is trying to destroy our entire side of Wikipedia, just on the notability side, tagging articles left and right for notability. So here’s the story that pretty well sums that up. So I see an argument with this guy and a couple of road geeks, and I do a response back, and then this guy has the audacity to say, you haven’t responded in a week, were you sent after me to dogpile on to this conversation? I wanted so badly to say back to him. ‘No, I just haven’t been on the wiki because I have a life, are you saying you don’t?'”
It becomes hard to navigate any social platform when the responses leave little room for conversation, allowing plenty of space for arguments instead. Of course, disagreements are natural, especially when you’re sitting behind a computer and not having to face the person you’re suddenly angrily typing at, but they become unnatural when they exist as the driving force behind any social interaction you have.
As a rule, notability is just as frustrating to many users as the aforementioned guide of no primary sources allowed.
Ben promises a part two will soon arrive and allow fans a deeper look into what else has pushed these editors to go on and form their own website. It is evident that another piece of the puzzle stems from an argumentative nature to the visitor of their pages, something Ben has dealt with several times.
“The doctrine that you are fighting against was fought over and settled in the earliest councils of Wikipedia’s existence, which you were not there for, and yet you have the gall to fight against them, to argue against them in the presence of the people who fu** wrote them? Wikipedia was founded on the premise that it will always be incomplete and that more information is better. Who the f*** are you to challenge that? The trouble is when all we want to do is just write our little articles; these people do nothing but try to advocate for their opinions, and thus — we’re losing, entropy is inevitable after all. So instead of fighting them, we have set up our own new Wiki.”
For those who are fascinated with learning more about roads and routes, you can do so at this new website, and we have a feeling many will be visiting for Ben’s snark and sarcasm alone.
