News

Ever know someone who knows it all? We found the ultimate and he's a Canadian to boot. He's the king of Wikipedians and he joined us for a live on-line chat.

As Alexandra Shimo writes in Friday's Globe, Simon Pulsifer is a 24-year-old University of Toronto graduate who has edited more than 80,000 entries and written somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 articles for the massive on-line encyclopedia Wikipedia, on anything from the Military History of Canada, the Italian Renaissance, the Marshall Plan, the Economy of Africa.

Among the Wikipedia community, who call themselves Wikipedians, Mr. Pulsifer is held up as the gold standard — the international benchmark against which they measure themselves...

Simon answered questions about the work he does, about information sharing in the Internet age, what he does on his non-Wikipedia time or whatever you wanted to ask him (he knows a lot!). Scroll down to read the chat.

Simon is the most prolific contributor to Wikipedia. He is also a member of the Arbitration Committee, the top regulatory body of the English language Wikipedia. He has studied history at the University of Toronto and is now working on the campaign staff of a mayoral candidate in Ottawa.

Wikipedia is an Internet-based encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It relies on volunteer contributors to create and maintain content. Currently there are some 1.2 million articles in the English Wikipedia and more than four million articles across all languages. It is one of the 20 most popular sites on the Internet with some 130 million unique visitors each month.

Editor's Note: The same rules will apply to this live discussion as normally apply to the "reader comment" feature. Globeandmail.com editors will read and approve each comment/question. Not all comments/questions can be answered in the time available. Comments/questions will be checked for content only. Spelling and grammar errors will not be corrected. Comments/questions that include personal attacks, false or unsubstantiated allegations, vulgar language or libelous statements will be rejected. Preference will be given to those who ask questions under their full name, rather than pseudonyms.

Kenny Yum, managing editor, globeandmail.com: Thanks for joining us Simon. Now, I understand you're in Boston for a Wikipedia conference. Can you tell us a bit about why you're there and what you're doing, then we'll get to the reader questions. Secondly, has fame caught up to you yet?

Simon: Thank you for inviting me to participate in this discussion. Currently I am sitting in one of the buildings of Harvard University Law School attending a conference on Wikipedia. It is currently the conference lunch break. This morning we had an opening address from Wikipedia's founder, Jimmy Wales. I then attended two seminars: one looking at how Wikipedia has unbalanced coverage of difference subject matter and another comparing Wikipedia to the Encyclopedia Britannica.

As to my fame, it has fortunately so far consisted of only a few friendly notes from friends and some recognition from fellow Wikipedians at the conference.

Jim Terrets from Vancouver writes: How come Wikipedia refuses to acknowledge the fact that the Elephant population around the world has tripled in the last six months? A lot of people have been trying to edit the appropriate Wikipedia entries to include this fact but Wikipedia editors have locked the pages. Has Wikipedia abandoned its ideal of a 'knowledge democracy' and adopted a system where only the elites are able to publish information?

pete stone from Summerside (Orig - St. John's) writes: A recent show from Steven Colbert showed Wikipedias biggest flaw. That any average person can edit a article how they see fit. Do you see the Colbert - Elephant issue as a prank or as exposing Wikipedias main flaw?

Kenny Yum, globeandmail.com: Simon, you've by now no doubt heard about the Colbert and Elephant incident. Can you address the two readers' comments and also talk about the dangers, flaws, or other issues that arise from a site like Wikipedia.

Simon: I'm afraid to disappoint Jim, but Wikipedia was never intended to be an experiment in democracy. It is an attempt to create a neutral and accurate encyclopedia.

While we have found that democracy is quite useful to this end, we have tried to build a system where an accurate fact will always trump a popular one, and mostly we succeed. The most important rule is that all information should be sourced to a reliable and respected secondary source, and as much as I like his show, Stephen Colbert doesn't quite qualify. Thus until the remarkable expansion of the elephant population makes it into a reputable journal or other such source, it won't survive for long in Wikipedia.

Joel McConnell from Toronto writes: Hi Simon. Wikipedia has become my preferred choice to Google, and I check the daily updates to learn about topics that usually fall outside of the information I'd normally work with on a daily basis. In fact, I find it so useful, I've shared the resource with friends... However, one of the pushbacks I often get from my referees relates to the fact that anyone can add content, their ultimate conclusion being that the quality of the information provided through Wikipedia is questionable at best. Any ideas/tips/stats on how to refute this objection? Again, what a great concept/tool.

Simon: Hello Joel, I'm pleased that you are using Wikipedia, and it is also great that you are trying to spread it to your friends. I do understand where your friends are coming from, it seems illogical even to me that Wikipedia could be as useful and accurate as it is.

One of the best responses is to ask your friends to read a Wikipedia article on something they know a great deal about. It is my experience that most of the time they will find that the article is of unexpectedly high quality.

Another idea is to direct them to one of our favourite stories of the last year. This is an article that appeared in the scientific journal Nature last fall.

It found that "Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries." The full report can be read here.

Tiberius McMahon from T-dot writes: I'm not totally certain, but since Wikipedia has been used to support certain legislation in Parliament, one theory among prominent Canadians who wiki is that the site itself carries a legal authority that can be carried over into courtrooms. Is Wikipedia then a valid legal resource and if not, will it ever be?

Simon: I am obviously a huge fan of Wikipedia and I use it frequently. However, I would be very hesitant to use it for anything as important as a law or court case.

Where is has been used in Canadian law is as a suggested further reading. For instance, Bill C-38, the same-sex marriage bill, lists Wikipedia on its related links page

It is a good article, that provides useful information to those wanting to learn more, but it shouldn't be considered to have much legal weight.

Kevin MacTavish from Toronto writes: I'm a high school teacher in Ontario. I have an idea that as part of his or her research and writing assignments, a student could create new Wikipedia articles, or edit existing Wikipedia articles (for example, improving content or providing citations for information already there). In doing so the student would need to interact with other Wikipedians that might add to or challenge what the student has contributed. The usual Wikipedia experience, I would expect. Is this an appropriate use of Wikipedia? Do you think it would be an effective way for students to learn about a topic, write about it, reference it and receive critical comments about what they have done? And all the while Wikipedia would be improved. To me, it sounds perfect. Comments? Thank you.

Simon: Wikipedia has several times been used effectively in schools, though some such projects have not ended as well (for instance the professor who told his students to fabricate a new word and try and post it to Wikipedia) We have a lengthy guide to this subject here.

Kenny Yum, globeandmail.com: Hi Simon, on our comment boards today, the reaction to your story varies wildly. How do you respond to people who think you're spending a little too much time on Wiki, and for your fans, do you think you're a role model?

A Comment from , Canada writes: The man deserves the Order of Canada or an recognition from Ontario govt. Helping all indiscriminately and representing Canada is truly honourable.

France G from , Canada writes: Of course he doesn't have a girlfriend! I think moderation is what's lacking here.....a bit of balance.....normalcy......It's too bad.....

Simon: I do probably spend too much time on Wikipedia, though one has to remember that the period when I was spending 8 to 10 hours per day was when I had no job.

I was spending no more time than most people do at work. As to the anonymous comment about the Order of Canada, I am honoured and delighted by your comments.

In reality, however, I simply spent a couple of years doing something I enjoy immensely.

Duncan Filshie writes: I actually went to school with Simon from grade 1 all the way through to OAC (or grade 13 when it existed). I always wondered what Simon would end up doing with his life, but I was pretty sure it would be something exceptional, albeit somewhat out of the ordinary. Congrats Simon for getting outside the box and doing something that you want to do, not what others want you to do. I think there's a lesson here for all of us. As long as you're happy what you're doing, then that's all tha matters. Kudos to Simon!!!

Simon: It is good to here from you Duncan, I remember you very well. While it would be nice to think that one simply needs to do what one enjoys to have success, my bank account would beg to differ. Working on Wikipedia is great, but at some point I will need a job that pays more than 0$ per hour.

Dee Lilley writes: Dear Mr. Pulsifer: Wikipedia is truly awesome. I laud your work, dedication, and sheer intelligence. With such a wonderful motherlode of 'as best as we know' information on hand, is there any way to actively counteract blatant and dangerous 'misinformation'? Recently, '(T)he Harris Poll reported that 50 percent of Americans now believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when we invaded, up from 36 percent in February 2005. Meanwhile, 64 percent still believe that Saddam had strong links with al-Qaida.' http://tinyurl.com/zfbnq This is just plain scary. As much as I enjoy the Wikipedia, the rest of the internets is more compelling these days. Regards, Dee Lilley

Simon: One of the most admirable things about Wikipedia is how much priority it places on having and accurate and neutral point of view. The blogosphere and other new and old forms of media have many advantages, but I do feel that it is very important to have a source such as Wikipedia that aspires to present a neutral and accurate amalgam of information. To go to your example, there are few pages about Iraqi WMDs as comprehensive yet readable as Wikipedia's Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.

Anthony G from Toronto writes: Why isn't there a Wikipedia entry for Simon Pulsifer?

Simon: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BIO I'm afraid I don't really qualify.

Wan Phek How from Vancouver writes: Simon, I have heard of university classes where students are allowed to refer to wikipedia but not quote from it? Do you see the potential of specialized mini-wikipedias with a closed group of writers/editors who earn the right to edit? This would adopt the Open Source developers method of slowing allowing programmers to earn the right to commit code changes. Thanks, Wan

Simon: I question whether seperate experts only Wikipedias would be successful. Wikipedia actually grew from something like this, known as Nupedia. Nupedia was a by all accounts a failure. What would be invaluable, is if more experts would review Wikipedia articles and help increase the standard of the current enyclopedia.

Ben Dachis from Toronto writes: For academic research do you think that Wikipedia is most useful as a starting point for research or do you think it can become a source of enough repute that it can be referenced in academic work? Today, if someone were to do so, they would probably automatically fail. Keep up the good work Mr. Pulsifer.

Simon: Hello Ben, your name is also one quite familiar to me. At the moment I do feel that Wikipedia should only be a first source for initial information, and that it can't really be used much in serious scholarship. The hope is that Wikipedia will continue to steadily increase in quality, so maybe in a few years Wikipedia will be even more valuable. Some parts of the encyclopedia are already at or close to this level, such as its coverage of computers and the Internet which are unmatched by any source I have ever encountered.

Kenny Yum, globeandmail.com: Hey Simon, we just posted this story on our tech site from the Wiki founder Jimmy Wales about how he's seeking more quality. Care to comment?

Simon: I was at this speech by Jimmy, and I agree with it completely. To a certain extent the structures of Wikipedia when they were first established were designed to maximize growth. This was important when the encyclopedia was just beginning, but today quality and accuracy are the greater concerns. Wikipedia must of course continue to grow, but even if the growth rate were halved it would still be adding the equivalent of the Encyclopedia Britannica every few months.

Kenny Yum, globeandmail.com: Okay, I was waiting for our readers to ask these questions, but none have. What's the first article you remember writing and the last article you've completed? How do you do most of your research? And, how do you choose what to write about?

Simon: The first article I created with my SimonP account was that on the Panama Canal. It was just a few sentences on a subject I thought was too important not to be covered. Today there is a vast article on the subject and I don't think any of my original work remains.

The most recent article I created was on St. Paul's Church in Halifax. I was in Nova Scotia visiting family and took the opportunity to take pictures of some article worthy buildings and structures.

I created this fairly short article out from what I could find on the Internet. For longer articles, or ones on more obscure subjects, I will often head to one of my local university libraries. I have spent much time in the stacks of the Ottawa U and Carleton libraries researching things for Wikipedia.

Nicholas Moreau from Brampton, Ont. writes: What would you say Wikipedia's greatest current challenge is? Perception? Protection?

Simon: Hello Nick, I would say perception is perhaps the greatest problem. While I will be the first to admit that Wikipedia is far from perfect, it is generally quite a bit better than most people expect. Managing growth is also a huge issue, as success is increasingly creating its own problems.

Cathie Q from United States writes: How does Wikipedia deal with politically contentious issues? Left and right wing interpretations of things like abortion, evolution, the war on Iraq, and even history are so different. Most can be backed up by secondary sources. How does Wikipedia make sure to avoid 'bias' or a war between two viewpoints? Oh, and I'm also wondering how you do your research?

Simon: Wikipedia is committed to presenting every subject with a neutral point of view. What this generally means is that for controversial subjects both view points are given. For instance, the page on global warming talks about the various people who disagree with the theory that humans are causing global warming and presents their arguments; however, it also presents the arguments of those who agree global warming is happening, and makes sure to note that this is the view that almost all scientists hold.

A Crocker from Canada writes: Simon, how does wikipedia ensure that corporations are not using the site for advertising or hurting the reputation of competitors? Also, can/do companies use wikipedia in a neutral way?

Kenny Yum, globeandmail.com: The reader makes a good point. This is a story that The Globe's Jane Taber wrote about how the Liberals use Wikipedia

The free Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia is emerging as a tool in the Liberal leadership race, to track the intentions of the most influential delegates.

It has become practically de rigueur for strategists to check and update the Wikipedia entry "Endorsements for the Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006," over coffee every morning.

Any comments?

Simon: Companies, politicians, and others do edit their articles. As long as the information the present is neutral and well referenced this is perfectly acceptable. When, as is unfortunately frequent, the information is purely promotional Wikipedians have a series of tools to help ensure that the encyclopedia is not used for advertising or attacking opponents. The most dramatic is temporarily blocking people or groups of people from editing Wikipedia. This had to be done to the entire U.S. House of Representatives a few months ago.

Kenny Yum, globeandmail.com: Thanks for joining us Simon, it was an interesting and informative discussion. To our readers, thanks for joining in -- we got to as many questions as we could given the time. Come back to globeandmail.com on weekdays for more live discussions. If you have any comments or questions about our chats or want to suggest a topic or guest, feel free to e-mail me.

Simon: Hello Kenny, thank you and the Globe very much for making this possible. It was a very interesting experience. Also thanks to all those who wrote in. I hope this discussion has encouraged people to read and edit Wikipedia, and also helped give instruction as to how Wikipedia can best be used.

Lunch is now over at the conference, and I will now be heading off to a plenary session with Lawrence Lessig, one of the founders of the free content concept.

Goodbye, and thank you again.