I think this is going to be a commentary on human nature, but, I assure you, it was born of a factual experience. You can check the Wiki logs.

I can’t really remember how long ago I registered on Wikipedia. It didn’t mean that much to me, but not doing so seemed silly. I sometimes replace a comma here and there, and I wrote the original entry on Ted Serios. It looks nearly the same today as when I wrote it.

I like to have the ability to set the record straight, so I’m always logged in whenever I visit the big W. I visit a lot. It helps me earn my living. Tonight I was writing a 400 word story on Stephen Chow (Kung Fu Hustle director/actor). I really wanted to use this juicy tidbit I found on Wikipedia:

“Chow learned to act at the Shaw Brothers' TVB acting school and co-hosted a popular Hong Kong children's program, 430 Shuttle, as a character named “Black and White Vampire”, and though this was a stepping stone for his career, it limited it, offering no outstanding performances.”

Black and White Vampire? My story needed color like that. But, having heard of Wiki sabotage and all, I thought I had better check Google to see if Chow the young vampire was for real. After all, some other comedian might have been pulling a stunt.

Google. Boom. Every single Google hit for “black and white vampire” stephen chow came from the Wikipedia story. The reason I know this, is because every single reproduction actually lifted it directly, either cut and paste or from the Wiki feed. Most reproductions appear on online “reference” sites or blogs. (I wonder what percentage of blog content is lifted rather than original. Over ninety, I suspect.)

I don’t know whether to be impressed with journalists for not putting this Stephen Chow “Wiki-fact” into published stories or disappointed that it has been left sitting there on Wiki, unsourced (which my Word spellchecker tells me is not a word) for God knows how long.

The Internet Movie Database (IMDB.com), which is considered to be a solid enough source for non-national security (won’t say homeland; that’s out of my vocabulary) issues, repeats some of the same content found on Wikipedia:

He graduated in 1983 and was hired to host a children's television program called 'Space Shuttle 430' even though he wasn't fond of children.

No mention of the vampire though. As I am a proud devotee of the ideals of journalism, I sorrowfully will not put the vampire “fact” (English needs a word for “fact”.) into my story, which is destined to be read by a few thousand Taiwanese high school English students. Their loss; Wikipedia’s fault.

Now, I am finally getting to my point. But wait, back to my keyboard journey… I’m staring at the paragraph there on Wikipedia, a famous man’s life crying out for validation by diminutive me. The paragraph bears no citation whatsoever. It is presented as the truth, as Wiki-Gospel. I recall having many times seen little [citation needed] messages inserted into Wiki articles. As a you-know-what, those tags always make me double check. Usually. Just kidding.

So I click on the Edit link to put one of those in. But I decide there must be a proper format for doing so. So I go looking. Nada. I found a search engine for a FAQ on how to use Wikipedia called Nubio (kind of like nada). But the word “fact” is literally nowhere in the database. Hmmm.

I browse through all the questions people ask. I checked other WikiPlaces too, of course (ahem). There are lots of good questions like, “Why has my article been deleted?” and “Wikipedia is infringing my copyright. What should I do?” But nowhere to be seen was, “I found a dubious fact on Wikipedia. How ought I edit?”

There. That question is now in their queue. Good Web.

In case my point is obscured by clouds, what I am upset about is the fact that there is no culture of fact checking at Wikipedia. I don’t blame this on the managers of the site necessarily, though they could have been the ones to make the site warmer to the untapped pool of fact checkers.

I’m not nitpicking. Go look at the Wiki Help pages and the Community Portal page. You will see this:

· Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles is a new category based project to review articles that are lacking sources.

Why is it new? Why can’t I find instructions on what to do about my dubious fact? I guess I’ll leave it there, just like anyone else would do. I posted a message on the discussion page for the Stephen Chow page, but it was obvious few people ever bothered to read it. Go figure. The Wiki-fact stays, unless you want to go edit it. But honestly, it looks like English speakers just don’t care about Steven Chow. Racists.

That was a joke.

Alas, this is what we can expect of people. But I remember there was A LOT of mainstream media coverage about the Wikipedia credibility issue not long ago. Of course Wikipedia is not a danger to influence the historical record. But, why hasn’t the site taken any serious steps toward encouraging all users to take an active role in questioning the little bits? I strongly suspect that most people take a laissez-faire approach to anything they consider “non-headline information.” They could use some nudging.

Consider this sentence, again from the Stephen Chow page:

“This latest film will introduce newcomer Zhang Yuyi as his romantic lead - continuing Chow's infamous tradition of introducing young female actresses who eventually go on to have successful film and music careers of their own. These "Chow's Cuties…”

Again, it is totally unsourced. Of course I removed the word infamous. Someone had posted on the Discussion page a while back that it was a questionable usage. I’ll bet the word had sat there, tarnishing Chow’s reputation for ages.

I promised commentary on human nature. Well, it is. I’m not trying to “expose” Wikipedia in any way. Wikipedia is what it is. The real story here is that all of us are crippled by a defect of thinking. We may know the parameters of the information economy, but we are not adept at using this knowledge to discern fact from fiction. My journalism school professor liked to tell us that it was genuinely truthful to say, once we printed something on paper, everyone took it as the Gospel truth. That puts a chill in your pen, I discovered when I did my internship at a real daily paper and they gave me a business story about a receivership case.

Most of us are not truth-seekers. My little Wiki-allegory is proof of that and nothing more. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Anyone can leave a message to express doubt about the authenticity of any small statement on the site, which I remind you, is the biggest, most-used encyclopedia in the world.

Anyone could have left a question about fact-checking for the Wiki-heads to answer. But nobody, it seems, is asking this question: “How do I make sure it is true?”

Seems is a big word in that last statement. I do believe that journalists ask that question. I’m not a hopeless cynic. But we need everybody else to follow suit.