Collective Online Intelligence vs. Anonymous Vandalism

The Korean version of online encyclopedia Wikipedia has put a four-month suspension on modification of its content about President Lee Myung-bak, citing anti-government online users’ repeated attempts to add biased and distorted information on him, such as “Lee Myung-bak is a rat”; “Lee’s approval ratings have plunged to 1 percent”; and “Lee is the mastermind of the candlelight rally.”

Wikipedia, where anyone can contribute to and edit contents, has been considered as a symbol of “collective intelligence” and a match for the Encyclopedia Britannica.

However, Wikipedia Korea, which has banned editing of its entry on President Lee, has concluded that Korea is suffering from a side effect of collective intelligence among its Internet users and that it needs a cooling-off period.

○ Irresponsibility and the problems of anonymity

Wikipedia allows multiple authors collaborate on new articles or revise them repeatedly via the Internet. Some point out that this has helped the free online encyclopedia maintain a high level of accuracy and reliability.

However, the Korean version of Wikipedia has revealed a negative side of collaborative writing. While an increasing number of people took to the streets to participate in candlelight vigils this month, anonymous Internet users repeatedly attempted to distort information on President Lee. Some netizens persistently added or modified explanations on words, such as “Myung-bak Fortress,” “The Chosun, JoongAng and Dong-A Dailies,” ”Criticisms on Lee Myung-bak” and “Impeachment Song.”

Wikipedia Korea has taken a “semi-protection” measure on a total of 71 words. This includes words related to current issues such as Samsung Group; names of celebrities such as Super Junior and SS501; terms that stir up nationalistic sentiments such as “Dokdo” and “Gija Joseon”; and the names of criminals who have shocked the nation, such as Yu Yeong-cheol and Shin Chang-won.

The semi-protection measure has also been taken on a considerable number of articles on other language versions of Wikipedia. The measure has been taken on some 1,800 entries of the English version of Wikipedia.

The content of Wikipedia written by advanced countries’ nationals tends to use politically insensitive words in contrast to that of Wikipedia written by Koreans. Most of users overseas participate in collaborate writing or discussion under their real names unlike Koreans.

Experts point out that Koreans are active in producing information but negligent in verifying facts and prefer to remain anonymous. They also claim that Koreans are not accustomed to the discussion culture and tend to belittle experts’ views.

“Korean netizens, who are used to expressing their thoughts in short comments rather than discussing, are abusing their right to edit other people’s writings. In the case of the English version of Wikipedia, people make efforts to verify information, often seeking professionals’ advice. However, that’s not the case in the Korean version,” says Bae Yeong, professor of information sociology at Soongsil University.

○ Blinded and self-righteous netizens

Experts express growing concerns over the current Korean Internet culture, which they say will produce a self-righteous and ignorant public rather than “smart mobs.” Even if a large number of netizens form public opinion, its political objectivity and the reliability of the content can be hampered by certain groups.

“Most online information may lack reliability and expertise because of the fact that anyone can distribute information on the Internet,” wrote Kim Hee-yeon, a researcher of the Korea Information Society Development Institute, in her paper dubbed “Study on the Reliability of Information and Knowledge Available on the Internet.”

Jaron Lanier, an American expert on the Internet, argues in his essay “Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism" that it is foolish to believe that a new online collectivism is always right and that the idea may result in “dreadful consequences” on democracy or meritocracy.

In fact, some believe the dreadful consequences were seen in the candlelight rallies.

Although online discussion channels, such as Daum Agora, have shown the “collective power of the powerless individuals,” it also brewed a series of side effects, such as infringement of individual human rights and violation of law, which were suggested by some netizens as a way to raise their voices during the rallies.

When the video clip showing a riot police officer kicking a college student’s head on June 1, netizens posted the name, address, cell phone number, the personal Web site address of an alleged assaulter and systemically called him to criticize him.

A “collective attack” was also carried out against a middle school teacher who showed his support on the resumption of U.S. beef imports in Korea. Netizens disclosed his name and telephone number on the Internet and send text messages with swear words.

An official of a portal site says that online users often blame their efforts to maintain political neutrality, arguing that they are pro-government. “Some say that slander on certain people is at a critical level. But we have virtually no means of preventing it.”