It says so on Wikipedia
My current pet hate is the use of the phrase “it says so on Wikipedia”, in a sarcastic manner. Usually it’s intended to make fun of people who don’t seem to ‘understand’ that anyone and everyone can edit or create Wikipedia articles on any subject (unless, of course, the IWF blocks Internet access to one particular image, and in doing so prevents the whole of your country from editing Wikipedia).
The implication is that, should you wish to, you can edit a Wikipedia article such that it corroborates your argument, no matter how ridiculous. A typical conversation which might seem to justify this belief is as follows.
Fred: What’s that you’re pouring into that saucepan?
Dave: Glue.
Fred: Glue? What are you making?
Dave: Spaghetti Bolognese.
Fred: That’s not made using glue!
Dave: Yes it is, it says so on Wikipedia.
There you go. Dave is the butt of the joke because he apparently doesn’t understand how Wikipedia works, and has foolishly taken its word as gospel. From now until forever, each time Dave makes a factual statement in Fred’s presence, Fred will ask “does it say that on Wikipedia?” in a sarcastic and derisory tone.
However, it’s highly ironic that it’s actually Fred who doesn’t understand Wikipedia.
The basis for this is in some kind of social equilibrium; there are as many people who want to maintain and improve the accuracy of Wikipedia as there are people who would deface it. But the former is much more rewarding than the latter; once you’ve defaced an article there’s nothing much more to do with it, but improving that article is a boundless task and thus inherently more rewarding. This is why the vast majority of Wikipedia vandals get bored and move on, while the majority of Wikipedia editors do not get bored.
If you were to edit the Wikipedia entry for Spaghetti Bolognese and add ‘glue’ to the ingredients, it would soon be reverted to its state prior to your vandalism. ‘Soon’ might not be within a minute, but it will be long before you are able to look back and laugh at what you did. In addition to all the automated bots and processes which examine edits for vandalism, there is a huge number of editors who watch various articles for various reasons. And, of course, there are normal people who read the article to learn how to cook Spaghetti Bolognese, or to find out its history, or just out of general interest – and common sense will tell them you can’t eat glue. Between them all, they will thwart your attempt to cause people to unquestioningly cook with glue for the rest of time.
It all comes down to the simple, fundamental rule: whatever you can do, there is someone else who can do it better. There’s a community built around Wikipedia, the members of which actively maintain various articles, recording and sharing their knowledge, expertise, common sense, and article-writing skills. Active Wikipedia editors assume guardianship of the articles they watch, and make it their personal responsibility to maintain their accuracy and usefulness.
I know this, because it says so on Wikipedia.
