Wiki for the few?

I recently came across an interesting article by Chris Wilson on Slate.com titled “The Wisdom of the Chaperones: Digg, Wikipedia, and the Myth of Web 2.0 Democracy”—an intriguing headline to be sure.

The article basically details how supposedly democratic social-media sites like Wikipedia and Digg are actually run by a select number of uber-participators or “chaperones”. In other words, there are a handful of super-geeks (along with some secret algorithms) controlling the content of these notoriously egalitarian sites.

If I remember my grade 10 civics class well enough (which I most certainly do not) I think that makes these sites more of an oligarchy than a democracy, power being in the hands of the few instead of the many. For example, Wilson references the stat that “1 percent of Wikipedia users are responsible for about half of the site’s edits.”

This might be unsettling for some. Personally I’m just left wondering who exactly are these chaperones spending so much time and energy editing Wikipedia? Do they have jobs? Families? Friends? What compels them to dump so much effort into compiling and editing entries about pizza bagels, Tickle-Me-Elmo, and roller derby? Why dedicate yourself so wholly to the Wiki? Go outside and get some bloody fresh air!

But who am I to judge? Wikipedia is actually a very helpful site, which “holds its own against Encyclopedia Britannica in accuracy…and has many time more entries,” according to Wilson. Perhaps kudos is in order for those geeky few that keep Wikipedia in tip-top shape?

I’m personally not very interested in contributing to Wikipedia (call me apathetic when it comes to participatory media), though I do frequent the site; it is my go-to source when I want a quick answer to the question of “who or what is that?” I’m always thankful that someone (whoever they happen to be) has bothered to write something useful about, say, the adorable James Marsden (just to through an example out there).

Wilson concludes his article with the argument that “Digg and Wikipedia would do well to stop pretending they’re operated by the many and start thinking of ways to rein in the power of the few.” I take his point. These sites should fess up to their oligarchy status. As for reining in the power of the few, I’m not so sure. If the super-geeks are keeping these sites running smoothly and accurately, must they really be dethroned?

FEEDBACK:

• What do you think? Do you agree with Wilson that the democratic aspect of social-media needs to be better exploited?
• Or do you agree that it’s O.K. to let the few rein, so long as they are doing a good job? POST YOUR COMMENTS!