If what we today know as “Wikipedia” had started life as something called, let’s say – “Jimbo’s Big Bag O’Trivia” – we doubt if it would be the problem it has become. Wikipedia is indeed, as its supporters claim, a phenomenal source of pop culture trivia. Maybe a “Big Bag O’Trivia” is all Jimbo ever wanted. Maybe not.
For sure a libel is a libel, but the outrage would have been far more muted if the Wikipedia project didn’t make such grand claims for itself. The problem with this vanity exercise is one that it’s largely created for itself. The public has a firm idea of what an “encyclopedia” is, and it’s a place where information can generally be trusted, or at least slightly more trusted than what a labyrinthine, mysterious bureaucracy can agree upon, and surely more trustworthy than a piece of spontaneous graffiti – and Wikipedia is a king-sized cocktail of the two.–Andrew Orlowski —There’s no Wikipedia entry for ‘moral responsibility’ (The Register)
While Orlowski makes many good points, he’s a bit misleading. At the time he wrote the article, there wasn’t an entry on “moral responsibility,” but there was an article on “ethics” and an article on “responsibility.”
And, Wikipedia being Wikipedia, of course there is an article on moral responsibility now.