Why Wikipedia deserves a Nobel Peace Prize
The year 2020 has tested the most significant aspect of humanity that differentiates us from other organisms — the ability for advanced communication. The miasma of misinformation which this year has brought forth from pseudo-science commentary on virology to conspiracy theories about election fraud is astounding. We have also been far more susceptible to misinformation being stuck at home with our computing devices. Overloaded with memes in forwarded messages and torrents of twisted tweets, many of us have found anchorage in authentic information. Despite the draw of drivel, the presence of fact-checking platforms has been a saving grace from complete anarchy taking hold.
In this midst, the most reliable and voluminous source of learning for the world has been Wikipedia, which celebrates its twentieth anniversary this year as well. Every month 1.5 billion unique devices worldwide access the site — with more than 6,000 page views per second. In addition to algorithms, the crowd-sourced information verification and validation mechanisms of the site comprises over 31,000 active contributors. These volunteers, who are vetted by their track record of authentic editing prowess, respond to misinformation with far greater alacrity than any other online source or indeed even any peer-reviewed source. The highly devolved structure of review with nested hierarchies of expertise have now overcome many earlier criticisms, and shines through clearly in the very fine quality and currency of articles.
Knowing well how misinformation can escalate conflict as well as cause worldwide disruption, Wikipedia has quietly played a role of creating the world’s most consequential fact-based epistemic community. There is no incentive to sensationalize information on the site which remains commercial-free and run as a non-profit. Unlike Facebook or Twitter, the site is quite simply a public service which is there to inform and build factual harmony across the internet. The site’s founder Jimmy Wales hails from Huntsville Alabama and studied at Auburn University and the University of Alabama, rather that the usual ivy league entrepreneurial route. He could have made millions by making the site commercial, but partly due to his own social commitment as well as the ethos created by Wikipedia volunteers, it has remained a nonprofit.
A widely recognized lesson of international peace-building is that information flows can build or erode trust. Wikipedia articles strive to build that trust across communities with their nuance and constant refinement. Consider some of their articles on territorial conflicts or controversial personalities. Each edit is carefully monitored and verified and checked before it can be allowed to remain on the site. Tags are placed on disputed claims and misinformation is deleted — often within seconds. There are numerous checks against vandalism that have evolved over the years as well to ensure that the information generates more light than heat.
In Alfred Nobel’s will, he asked for the peace prize to be given to “advance fellowship among nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the establishment and promotion of peace congresses.” The Norwegian Nobel committee, which awards the prize, has interpreted this statement quite widely but has yet to give the prize to a media organization. Wikipedia is a unique media organization with volunteers from all over the world which have clearly created a “fellowship.” The knowledge they are providing the world to mitigate the spread of misinformation, and constantly refining layers of learning is like a perpetual online congress that promotes peace.
Furthermore, the Wikimedia Foundation which manages Wikipedia is short on cash. The impact which a Nobel Peace prize award would have in seeding a solid financial base for the organization would be immense. The prestige of the prize would likely attract additional donors and ensure that we have such an organic, global source of knowledge available for humanity in the long-term. As with any organization, Wikipedia has endured deficiencies just as even the Nobel committee itself has encountered scandals in recent years. The volunteers could be more gender-balanced and cover an even wider span of global diversity. There have also been concerns about online harassment within the writers’ community. Yet such concerns do not detract from the monumental public service this organization has provided in separating fact from fiction in a world of “infowars,” and promoting knowledge-based peace.