The Power Of WikiTrust System

Writing by Nick Stamoulis Tweet

Wikipedia is adding another layer of trust to its user generated content system called WikiTrust. This article in Wired Magazine does a good job of covering the positives and the negatives of Wikis in general as it related to content generation, search engine optimization and Wikipedia specifically.

On the one hand, the WikiTrust system is pretty straightforward. New editors have a low level of trust and over time as their edits survive their level of trust increases. That’s good. It’s the way it should be. On the other hand, Wikipedia in general depends on consensus, which means that it is the global village by democratic rule that determines what is accurate knowledge. The consensus has been wrong before, can it be wrong again?

Here are some examples of how the majority, by consensus, got things wrong:

• At one time, the world was flat
• The sun revolved around the earth
• In early America, if you could swim after being thrown into a lake, you were a witch

So the problem is, the consensus cannot always be trusted. Which brings into the question whether the WikiTrust system itself can be trusted since it based in part on the consensus.

Despite its obvious weaknesses, I think the WikiTrust system has some merit. Like other systems of trust, it isn’t perfect, but it does provide some basic checks and balances in a system that is inherently flawed. My question is, could such a color coded system of trust work for the entire Web? Might the search engines themselves be arbiters of trust in like fashion of individuals who produce content (as opposed to individual websites)? In other words, could Google ascribe certain qualities of trust to individual IP addresses so that any individual who produces content for any website online can be judged according to the level of accuracy and trust built over time? Is it feasible?