As the years go by and Wikipedia continues to grow in scope and size, it has emerged as a great paradox of the digital age. Although the site, which turns 12 years old in January, is far and away the most expansive reference work in the world and is available in over 200 languages, it has been unable to find good standing in the academic community as a credible source. It is certainly understandable that academia would be leery of a source open to editing by anybody in the world. However, Wikipedia is showing signs that it has begun to outgrow its reputation as a haven for vandalism, slanted rhetoric, and misinformation. While the transition won’t be easy, it may be time for some educators to begin to reconsider their ban on the informational juggernaut.

An Oct. 25 article in The Atlantic entitled “Surmounting the Insurmountable: Wikipedia Is Nearing Completion” makes the claim that Wikipedia is reaching the end of its developmental stage, and a great many of its articles are nearing completion. Of course, this holds only for entries whose content remains static; those covering topics of a historical nature or certain areas of science. The article points to the Wikipedia page on the War of 1812 as a prime example. The bulk of  this 14,000 word entry was written in 2006. Since then, users have continued to make edits and dispute various points on the entry’s 200,000-word discussion page. In 2008, there were 256 users actively editing the page; today, this number has dwindled to 28.

This decline indicates not a decreased interest, but an equilibrium which has been reached within an article where nearly all questionable facts have been verified, nearly all debatable points have been debated, and nearly all contentious language has been sifted out by the spectrum of backgrounds and political views reflected in the editor-base. This equilibrium is the essence of crowd-sourcing, combing over the individual’s biases and resulting in a product that satisfies all parties. It is in this sense that an article can be considered completed.

The use of the word ‘completion’ here must come with a caveat. By its nature, Wikipedia is a living body of work that is constantly expanding and updating. Developments in the news typically generate their own respective entries in very little time, and the related discussion pages are constantly active for those articles which do continue to change. For these active pages, equilibrium cannot be reached, as each development brings with it a new set of discussions and deliberations. In this respect, they can never be ‘completed’ in any real sense. ‘Completion,’ in the context of Wikipedia, refers to the point where the site need only keep up with the world’s information, rather than catch up with it.

The next step for Wikipedia, as The Atlantic piece correctly asserts, is to bolster its wealth of information with credible academic citations. Additionally, articles that are strictly historical and have shown a decrease in editing should be ‘semi-protected’—a term on Wikipedia which restricts editing privileges to registered users only. This greatly reduces the likelihood of vandalism, or of somebody editing without consulting the talk page. These stabilizing policies would lend Wikipedia much needed legitimacy in academic circles.

Beyond the fear of inaccuracy, there are very few reasons for the academic world not to embrace Wikipedia. It doesn’t infringe on any existing informational sources, as it doesn’t offer enough of a breakdown on topics to serve as a replacement for textbooks, nor does it offer critical analysis in the same way that a scholarly article does. Wikipedia would exist within academia simply as a foundational core of facts and figures on a wealth of topics, a more thorough version of a traditional encyclopedia.

Unfortunately, the site’s use will continue to meet resistance because it does infringe on one critical deep-seated aspect of academia: elitism. The world of academia exists, as it always has, as a hierarchical structure. Credibility is measured largely by individual accomplishment, publications, tenure,  and seniority. What Wikipedia represents is the notion that credibility can exist in the collective. Although its editor-base includes academics and other qualified individuals, its credibility is not quantifiable. For the academic community to acknowledge its legitimacy would be an admission that knowledge does not belong exclusively to institutions of higher learning.

Academia should acquiesce to the powerful collaborative tools such as Wikipedia. However, in a realm that is not known for its acceptance of change, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Last week, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) issued a report on the state of campus free speech in 2012, in which the Calgary-based libertarian think-tank examined the degree and limits to free speech at Canadian universities. The overwhelming majority of schools in the report received failing grades. McGill’s administration received a D, while the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) received an F. Such low grades warrant further examination. While the report covers a series of topics, its authors seemed to take particular issue with McGill’s Safe Space policy.

The Tribune finds this preoccupation surprising. Though a number of issues raised in the report merit a closer look, McGill’s support for Safe Spaces—inclusive environments which discourage sexist, racist, and homophobic expression—is not one of them. According to the report, McGill’s Safe Space policy limits the speech of those who use terms deemed ‘offensive.’ While this sort of negative reinforcement may restrict the speech of students who choose to use certain hurtful terms, the Tribune believes that Safe Spaces offer an important element to the discourse on campus—they provide context and a sense of inclusion. They certainly do not pose a threat  to freedom of speech in the way that the administration’s Provisional Protocol or SSMU’s Equity Policy may.

[pullquote]To cite Safe Spaces as a major source of repression of free speech conveys a false sense of conflict and oppression.[/pullquote]

The Equity Policy, which limits freedom of speech by the ambiguous marker ‘progressive,’ has far heavier consequences than Safe Spaces do. While students may be reprimanded for using hurtful or offensive terms in a Safe Space, they are not prevented from expressing dissent. The Equity Policy, on the other hand, could lead to a withdrawal of funds from groups and individuals that do not align with SSMU’s idea of ‘progressive’ that year. There has already been at least one instance of this, as outlined in the report.

Overall, the report sensationalizes an issue that has not been pressing on campus. To cite Safe Spaces as a major source of repression of free speech conveys a false sense of conflict and oppression.

This editorial board does not believe that free speech has been significantly repressed by limitations placed on hurtful or discriminatory terms. This newspaper is free to publish material written by its editors and contributors. That our content is mindful of many of the same rules as those found in Safe Spaces does not mean that the Tribune feels coerced. Rather, we are glad to be a part of a community that fosters discourse about the realities faced by the few.

Programs like Safe Space do not exacerbate tensions on campus, they alleviate them. The purpose of the program is to educate people on what others may find offensive. Rather than enforcing a rigid standard for what students can and cannot say, Safe Space cultivates an atmosphere of acceptance.

Although the report expressed some legitimate concerns regarding SSMU’s Equity Policy, as well as the undue limits on free expression imposed on our community by the administration’s Provisional Protocol, its criticism of Safe Spaces is both unfounded and wholly misguided. To lump it in alongside the Provisional Protocol, and more serious violations of freedoms of speech and assembly bespeaks a severe misunderstanding about free speech on the part of the JCCF.  This kind of sensational reporting begets hostility, not the other way around.

Last week, while tired U.S. election news finally began to wane on the side of repugnance and Halloween festivities were dampened by the last leg of midterms, the heavens concocted something exciting for media circuits and laypeople alike to discuss.  Her name was Hurricane Sandy, and as of early last week, she was headed for the East Coast.  To many, an imminent storm means stocking up on potato chips and booze, lighting a couple of candles,  and watching Law and Order for three days straight on generator power. If you are able to back your car out of the driveway, it can mean going shopping on the day you have off from school or work.  Back while Sandy was still a ‘hybrid storm,’ clothing retailer American Apparel profited from the hype,  and sent an e-mail to shoppers in states located in Sandy’s projected path, offering a 20 per cent off discount with a witty promo code—“SANDYSALE.”

But all the fun came to a screeching halt when Sandy made landfall in Atlantic City, New Jersey on Oct. 29.  Sandy hit the coast as a category one hurricane, causing an estimated $50 billion in damages and killing over one hundred people in the U.S., two in Canada, and at least 70 in the Caribbean islands.  The effects of the freakishly large ‘superstorm’ are undoubtedly tragic across the eastern half of North America.  This left some, even before the storm was over, outraged at the American Apparel advertisement,  which offered customers something to do “in case you’re bored during the storm.”  Shortly after the e-mail was sent, anger permeated Twitter, blogs, and television, in opposition to the perceived exploitative nature of the sale.

Was this truly a deviant scheme of corporate greed?  If so, American Apparel is not alone in its devices.  While the Los Angeles-based retailer—founded by Montrealer Dov Charney—received the brunt of the criticism, several others took advantage of the weather event without suffering nearly as much protest.  Among them was Urban Outfitters, which sent out a similar e-mail, as well as Long Island retailer Singer22. Even the Gap and Sak’s Fifth Avenue encouraged online browsing and purchasing to quell antsy East Coasters stuck indoors.

Charney, in an interview with Businessweek following the controversial ad, addressed the needs of his employees at stores in the affected states and the nature of the retail business: “We’re here to sell clothing … What’s really important right now is to put people back to work as soon as possible.”  The clothing brand has been controversial in the past, but for the most part has had a progressive, activist affiliation— with campaigns for legalizing gay marriage in California and immigration reform.  In most instances, the company appears to be concerned with local issues—it’s not out to exploit the destruction of thousands of homes and businesses, or the losses of hundreds of lives. “We weren’t out to offend anyone. Our heart is in the right place,” Charney said.

Past philanthropic efforts for disasters such as Hurricane Katrina—after which American Apparel sent 80,000 tee shirts to New Orleans and raised money for the relief effort—as well as the 2010 Haitian earthquake—to which the company donated $400,000—only foreshadow likely efforts by the firm in the Sandy aftermath. Charney has made it clear that such involvement is a likely endeavor for American Apparel.  It should be noted that, along with storm-themed sales, charitable donations can be a form of advertising too. Most customers probably wouldn’t be critical of that in the wake of disaster.

American Apparel, as well as the other retailers, simply acted in honest terms.  While Sandy has left a horrendous mark on the East Coast, nobody knew for sure if it was going to be a tragedy or a repeat of last year’s Irene—a bit of a dud—like most storms that make it so far north.  As Charney said, “the reality was there were a lot of people stuck at home in front of the Internet.”  The ad was harmless, and created with the expected, if not good, intentions.