A few months ago, Stephen Colbert pointed out how easy it was to add incorrect information to Wikipedia. He used the elephant population as an example, and within minutes of mentioning it, his fan base had added an incorrect “fact” - that “The number of elephants has tripled in the last 6 months” to Wikipedia’s entry on elephants.

Fortunately, Wikipedia’s community of editors were on top of the situation and quickly stopped all editing of the elephant page for a few days until interest in the story died down.

But what’s Wikipedia to do about all the other “experts” who are editing its entries with false information? Stephen Colbert is a high profile figure, but most of Wikipedia’s community are volunteers who can make up credentials and then add anything they want.

Take, for example, the most recent scandal in which a college dropout posed as a professor of theology to post all sorts of information. The frequent contributors who claim to have prestigious credentials can also act as gatekeepers to monitor and/or delete information that others post. Of course, anyone can put up fraudulent information on a website and claim that it’s true - that kind of stuff is all over the web - but Wikipedia is supposed to be above that.

Wikipedia is planning to start reference checking its editors and cracking down on anonymous postings - but with so many people adding and updating information, is that really possible? It sounds to me like one of those idealistic goals that is impossible to put into practice.