Question

WIKIPEDIA, leverages technological innovation afforded by the Internet combined with a crowdsourcing approach to content development and maintenance. Beyond the technical challenges of web interfaces, servers, and bandwidth for delivery is a sometimes-overlooked capability: the Wikipedians themselves. Over 32 million people have registered accounts to contribute edits to Wikipedia. More than 300,000 users provide edits to the website at least once a month. These volunteers build the content for the site, using a creative commons license that ensures free access to any of the 500 million unique visitors each month. This crowdsourcing and its legal underpinnings are successful only as long as individuals are willing to spend their own time contributing to the site for no pay or other extrinsic benefits. The ability to attract and utilize legions of interested individuals is vital to the success of Wikipedia both today and into the future. Moreover, Wikipedia is a nonprofit, free-of-advertising social entrepreneurship venture that is exclusively financed by donations. Wikipedia runs regular calls for donations using slogans such as: “Please help us feed the servers,” “We make the Internet not suck. Help us out,” and “We are free, our bandwidth isn’t!” Calls for donations also come in the form of personal appeals by co-founder Jimmy Wales. The question arises whether the donation model is sustainable given not only the increasing demand for Wikipedia’s services, but also the emergence of competitors. Wikipedia might not be as error-prone in science topics as shown in the Nature study mentioned earlier, because most entries on Wikipedia are not about science. Wikipedia maintains that it fosters a “neutral point of view.” A recent research study tested this claim. In particular, a study of 28,000 articles about US politics revealed a significant bias. On average, Wikipedia entries lean left of center. Initial entries arrive with a slant, and change little over time. This bias is more pronounced in earlier Wikipedia articles. The authors call this the “vintage bias.” Although the degree of slant in Wikipedia articles changes little over time, more recent political entries are more balanced. One reason the authors put forth to explain the vintage effect is that in the early days of Wikipedia only technology enthusiasts and early adopters participated, and this demographic tends to lean left. The shift toward a more “neutral point of view” over the years has arisen from the growth of Wikipedia, bringing in the early and late majority as contributors. Questions

a. How can Wikipedia maintain and grow its ability to harness the crowdsourcing of its “Wikipedians” to maintain high-quality (and quickly updated) content?

b. As Wikipedia keeps growing, do you think it can continue to rely exclusively on donations (in time and money)? Why or why not? What other “business models” could be considered? Would any of those “violate the spirit of Wikipedia”? Why or why not?

c. What, if anything, should Wikipedia do to ensure that its articles indeed present a “neutral point of view”? Shouldn’t the crowdsourcing approach ensure objectivity? Does a “neutral point of view” matter to Wikipedia’s sustainability? Why or why not?

d. How has the “long tail” affected Wikipedia?

Answer 1

a. Wikipedia can make an incentive based strategy to reward those who significantly contribute to the content of Wikipedia. This will in a way provide boost to the present Wikipedian and open up doors for more enthusiastic individuals to come and contribute and on the same time make some money as well.

b .As Wikipedia survives on donation, it gives a high morale picture of the organization that it is not profit based. This in a way does positive branding. It can therefore indeed rely on donations and be success in future also.

However to suggest business strategy restructure. It can start charging the Wikipedia users but that will take away the good views about it in general public across globe. It will destroy the spirit of Wikipedia. People as of now have not thought about Wikipedia as organization inclined towards business.

c. It is for sure that Wikipedia neutral point of view matters a lot. As Wikipedia is very popular and famous and many people across globe use it, it can impact the public policy and many political issues across globe. Therefore, it has to maintain neutral point of view or there might be issue when topics of Palestine or Pakistan is displayed without neutral views. People might revolt.

d. Wikipedia continuous growth has made it more responsible and any changes for it to make will surely be made after good strategy, risk management in place and including all big stakeholders. Wikipedia is more affected by the image it has built for itself. To make it look different or to give it a different business look is certainly very difficult to execute and frame.