On most topics, Wikipedia editors make a sincere effort to be reliable — but there are exceptions, and Wikipedia’s entry for Eamonn Fingleton provides an example. For many years, Wiki has pursued an evidently politically-inspired agenda to cast doubt on Fingleton’s work.

Wiki’s entry as of today (November 2024) lives up to expectations. First let’s set one matter to one side: Wiki suggests that Fingleton is not prominent enough to merit a Wiki entry. That is a matter of opinion, of course, and honest observers are entitled to differ in their opinions. What matters is Wiki’s presentation of the facts. Wiki contrives to suggest — without ever saying so — that Fingleton’s books are “self-published.” Actually Fingleton’s books have been published by top publishers such as Houghton Mifflin, Penguin Books, and St. Martin’s Press. Translations moreover have been published by serious publishers in France and Japan.

A bit of background may be in order: in the non-fiction books business, self-publication is highly stigmatized. If an author resorts to it, this is taken by the media as a sure-fire indicator that he or she is, at best, a bore without an off-button. As a practical matter, self-published non-fiction books are almost never reviewed. Reviewers and literary editors just reflexively assume such books are a waste of paper. Such books moreover are rarely if ever accorded space on the shelves of traditional bookstores.

In the early days of the Internet, about fifteen years ago, Fingleton complained to Wikipedia editors about how he was being misrepresented  but he quickly came to realize there is a Whack-a-mole aspect to the problem: as soon as you fix one problem, two more problems pop up in its wake.

Let’s cut to the chase. The Wikipedia system is hopelessly Utopian. It is built on the principle that anyone can edit any Wiki entry without having to disclose his or her identity. 

Wiki’s anonymity contrasts sharply with a spirit of openness at Encyclopedia Britannica, where, among other things,  major contributors’ names are fully disclosed. 

Just the most obvious consequence of Wiki’s anonymity is that its editors face little or no accountability. This lack of accountability may not have seemed so significant in the idealistic early days of the Internet but it is certainly significant now. Apart from anything else, we have to wonder how far, in covering politically sensitive issues, the Wiki editing system has been penetrated by propagandists acting for various disinformation services.

For a biographical note on Eamonn Fingleton, click here.