Editorial row? I'll wiki it.

I’m sorry, but why in the name of fornication is this news? My BBC RSS feed has just informed me that Wikipedia is engulfed by an editorial row.

Engulfed. What an interesting word to use. Yes, I can see it now, swept asunder by editorial fury, drowned like Atlantis under the torrents of their rage...

The story goes that the unmoderated editing of Wikipedia entries is being reviewed after a number of wags changed certain pages – in this case those of Senators Robert Byrd and Edward Kennedy – to suggest the subjects in question were no longer amongst the living. This isn’t new, it has happened before. Lore has it that the Microsoft entry has on a number of occasions been edited humorously to be less than complimentary about dear old Bill.

The part of this I’m missing is why this matters. A group of people passionate about their product are reviewing one of the core principles on which their vision was founded. I would be much more surprised if there was laconic agreement to such a big shift. Of course there will be arguments and raised voices. Those who believe in a free interweb and information sharing tend to be evangelists for their principle, and if some amongst them are questioning that, the discussion is likely to be heated.

For what it’s worth, I would urge a little backbone amongst the doubters. Whilst Wikipedia has grown to be a respected and trustworthy source of information (due to what I like to think of as the Law of Anal Retentives), it has done so without official moderation. The truth generally outs. The principle of Wikipedia as being the encyclopaedic equivalent of open-source software should not be threatened simply because there are some irresponsible people out there who decided to have a bit of a chuckle.

My word to the editorial team: leave it as it is. It works, and don’t let the minority spoil something you have every right to be very proud of. Even if your founder does think it's okay to wear a kimono.