Interested in more careers-related content? Check out our new weekly Work Life newsletter. Sent every Monday afternoon.
The next time somebody famous dies, head to Wikipedia. It’s likely that the entry for that individual will have already been updated to acknowledge the death.
It’s a small example of the big success of an internet operation that was initially ridiculed. How could a loose grouping of volunteers match the strength of the experts who had built the knowledge base encompassed in the weighty books produced by Encyclopedia Britannica and World Book? In today’s polarized climate, we might add this other huge barrier: How could they ever find agreement on controversial entries – indeed, any entry, given the passionate disagreements that would inevitably arise over factual accuracy.
But they did topple the existing encyclopedia giants and have become something we take for granted today. While other tech companies may disappoint, with their algorithms and ads and noise, Wikipedia quietly does the job its founder, Jimmy Wales, set out to accomplish. There are now more than 300 versions in other languages, with total annual page views of 300 billion on a planet with only eight billion people.
“Wikipedia is no longer a crazy idea. It isn’t debated and mocked. It isn’t embroiled in scandal. Wikipedia is simply read by immense numbers of people who trust the information it provides,” he writes in The Seven Rules of Trust, along with Ottawa’s Dan Gardner, his writing partner for the book.
He stresses that the Wikipedians who build it know that the archive has flaws and failings. But he insists for simple facts – such as how old is Tom Cruise – Wikipedia is outstanding.
“And as a starting point on more difficult subjects, as a way to get your bearings, to find good sources and begin exploration, Wikipedia is wonderful – on almost any subject under the sun, from the trivial to the profound,” he says.
Crucial to its success, he believes, was clarity of purpose. At the start, he would repeat regularly, “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.” That made it clear to the many volunteers what their job was since they all had a mental model of what an encyclopedia does. If he had made a big deal about it being a new way to share information, he would then have a lot of explaining to do to get their attention and have them sign on and then point them in the right direction. This way, people immediately knew its value, what topics to tackle and how it should be written.
“Wikipedia is an encyclopedia” was the first of five pillars his team set out for those volunteers, framing the culture for the organization. The other four were: Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit and distribute. Wikipedia editors should treat each other with respect and civility. Wikipedia has no firm rules.
The pillars tended to attract people who were concerned with accuracy. “In time, Wikipedia developed a culture that is obsessed with accuracy,” he writes. “Millions of wonderful hairsplitting details … can be found in Wikipedia because the people who write Wikipedia are overwhelmingly passionate about getting facts right.”
From the beginning, Wikipedia has had the following policy: “Assume good faith.” People are expected to assume the people they are working with – who might have quite different views on the information that should be shared in an entry – have good intentions.
He shares as an example when a new, anonymous editor might have replaced a paragraph on American presidential politics with something different – and objectionable to you – as an editor. “While you may suspect in the back of your mind that this person is a rotten, self-promoting, partisan hack, you will not respond that way. You will assume this is someone honestly trying to improve Wikipedia. They may be doing a bad job. But they’re trying,” he says.
That changes the focus and tone of your response to factual disagreement. Rather than stir up the other person with a vehement attack, you nudge them to a similarly civil stance. Of course, you may not come to an agreement and, after three rounds of discussion, the rule is others are brought into the conversation.
He notes any organization that needs to draw on the knowledge and skills of a wide array of people must create a healthy environment and for that civility is essential. Some people get a kick out of being rude and abusive, he adds, but most Wikipedians are nice people; they just love to argue – about everything. His team tries to celebrate those who do so in a civil manner, setting them up as examples for others to follow.
“But civility does not mean – I can’t underscore this strongly enough – minimizing or downplaying disagreements, much less avoiding arguments altogether. We not only should disagree when we have sincere, thoughtful objections. We must. Disagreement is how we learn from others and get smarter together,” he writes.
In 2005, the scientific journal Nature compared 42 entries in Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia, finding an average of three inaccuracies for each in Britannica and four for Wikipedia. Britannica published an open letter complaining the study was flawed. Wikipedia’s editors asked the journal to identify the errors so they could be fixed.
At the core of Wikipedia’s success is trust. The people working to produce it have to trust each other. The people using Wikipedia have to trust its information. “In a little more than two decades, Wikipedia has grown from a ridiculous idea that could never work to a globally trusted source of information,” he says.
Cannonballs
- To get your team to take ownership for tasks they are assigned, consultants Karin Hurt and David Dye urge you to get in the habit of ending meetings with: “Who will do what by when – and how will we know?” They stress being clear on how you will know – is there a handoff, an update, a signal?
- Executive coach David Smailes says falling back on artificial intelligence to construct messages to your team will reduce your effectiveness. Several studies show that audiences engage less with AI-generated content, especially when it lacks a human voice or real-world perspective. Make sure your messages are candid, compassionate and concrete. Speak in the first person and own your decisions. Acknowledge how people feel, not just what they need to do. Avoid ambiguity, which just creates anxiety.
- If trust is so important, why aren’t organizations measuring it, asks executive coach John Blakey? Measures exist such as the Leadership Trust Index or Paul Zak’s Organizational Trust Index. He argues boards, investors and regulators are increasingly looking at non-financial metrics as indicators of long-term value creation and trust deserves a prominent place in that mix alongside revenue, employee turnover and customer satisfaction.
Harvey Schachter is a Kingston-based writer specializing in management issues. He, along with Sheelagh Whittaker, former CEO of both EDS Canada and Cancom, are the authors of When Harvey Didn’t Meet Sheelagh: Emails on Leadership.