Wikileads

Wikileaks is not a completely open wiki, like Wikipedia is. Anyone can contribute to Wikipedia as an editor or writer, and the site relies on other editors and writers to fact-check content, weeding out inaccurate or biased data as it appears.

But Wikileaks recruits journalists, or at least people with experience writing, editing or researching. You have to apply to become a Wikileaks editor. You have to send a bio and links to writing samples, and someone has to approve you.

The people at Wikileaks are probably afraid of biased or sloppy users flooding their site with falsehoods and propaganda. They want their documents analyzed for maximum political impact, in context and full of facts.

Why? Because Wikileaks documents are sensitive. They condemn people or organizations and accuse them of unjust acts, even crimes. They can ruin careers or reputations. They must be handled with care.

But are Wikipedia’s concerns any different? Take this op-ed by Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam about the ongoing war to control Wikipedia content about the Middle East. CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, started a campaign to keep Israel-related content on Wikipedia free of an anti-Israel slant.

Then pro-Palestine group Electronic Intifada got a hold of email conversations among CAMERA’s corps of Wikipedia editors. EI leaked the emails and attempted to discredit CAMERA, accusing the group of extreme Zionism and anti-Arab bias:

A pro-Israel pressure group is orchestrating a secret, long-term campaign to infiltrate the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia to rewrite Palestinian history, pass off crude propaganda as fact, and take over Wikipedia administrative structures to ensure these changes go either undetected or unchallenged.

CAMERA and EI responded so forcefully because Wikipedia matters. People trust the information there, or they want to trust it. At the very least, Wikipedia is a jumping-off point, a place to become familiar with a topic before fact-checking elsewhere.

So if Zionist propaganda overtakes the Wikipedia page about Israel, it influences people’s views on Israel.

Struggles like these are exactly what Wikileaks wants to avoid. According to the Globe op-ed, Wikipedia’s users wreak havoc on controversial topics (evolution, abortion, Bill Clinton). Meaning all of Wikileaks’ content would be at risk. What’s more controversial than a leaked document that alleges large-scale wrongdoing?

On the other hand, democratizing the editorial board could provide Wikileaks with the attention it so desperately wants.

Wikipedia works precisely because anyone can edit it. Everyone who visits the site can contribute. Maybe if any random banker could open up a Bank Julius Baer document and contribute to an article decoding the financial jargon, demonstrating exactly how the bank is committing fraud, Wikileaks would be more visited, more user-friendly and more prominent in the fight against corruption.

UPDATE: The original title of this post was “If Wikileaks were a true wiki…”, but thanks to user feedback, the title and first paragraph have been updated.