Anonymity on Wikipedia

Considering the role of WikiScanner and the fact that one cannot write a Wikipedia article without being registered, it may seem that more accountability has come to the site. However, Wikipedia still maintains a degree of anonymity that I believe remains a cause for concern. Sure, one reason behind anonymity on Wikipedia is for the protection of its users in that they can post their view on a topic without being persecuted and/or endangered by their viewpoints. Another reason is the democratic ideal in that anyone can contribute no matter what background he or she may be coming from.

I can respect these views of Wikipedia, but at the same time I feel that authority and accountability are and still should be a part of academics. Although it is stressed time and time again that it should not be used as a primary source, it is fact that, "Wikipedia has grown rapidly into one of the largest reference Web sites, attracting at least 684 million visitors yearly by 2008."

Furthermore, the name 'Wikipedia' suggests that it is a type of encyclopedia, a word that possesses "a powerful connotation of reliability" (McHenry, 2005).

With this considered, I believe that Wikipedia should institute more authority and accountability within the site for the overall good of peoples' knowledge and perceptions of the world. Wikipedia itself claims that "users need not worry about accidentally damaging Wikipedia when adding or improving information, as other editors are always around to advise or correct obvious errors."

Is Wikipedia promoting carelessness in research and accuracy of an article? Shouldn't we be held accountable for the information that we are relaying? It is true that most inaccurate information on Wikipedia will be revised at one point, but what about the time between the original post and revision? Although a disclaimer may appear at the top of the page, how much do we treat that article different than an article with no disclaimer, if at all? There are so many Wikipedia pages that have disclaimers that I feel many become desensitized to them and don't really consider what they are saying.

As for the need for both accountability and authority on Wikipedia, consider the story of Essjay. This 24-year-old college dropout claimed some authority on topics pertaining to Catholicism as he deceived the community into thinking he had both doctorates in philosophy in theology and canon law. Although he claimed that his false identity was used to protect his true identity, it is clear that he used it as leverage to gain authority on topics such as 'the status of Mary in the Roman Catholic Church,' in which he was asked to give "expert testimony." Essjay was even revered as much to gain membership on the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee.

Especially in the Church that is known for its submission to authority figures who many feel have earned their dues and religious opinions(Pope, Cardinals, Doctors of the Church, Bishops, Priests, etc.), Essjay's words were probably taken very seriously by many who read his contributions. I feel people could be getting better information about the Catholic Church from one of real credentials that supports his or her background with proof than one who claims a false identity while stating that "[Catholicism for Dummies] is a text [he] often require for [his] students, and would hang [his] own Ph.D."

I believe that authority and accountability should be necessary on Wikipedia for the good of all because it is such a widely-used source. It will not only enhance the quality of one's knowledge, but I feel it will also help deter people from becoming careless in their research and writing.