The New York Review of Books has posted a fabulous and entertaining editorial about the history behind wikipedia’s rise. Technically, it’s not actually an editorial, but is rather supposed to be a review of John Broughton’s newish book Wikipedia: The Missing Manual… and if you look hard enough you will find some references to Broughton’s work in there. But you have to look really, really hard – if you skim, you will miss it. So I’ll just call it an entertaining and educational editorial on Wikipedia by Nicholson Baker that is well, well worth the read.

One of my favorite part comes early, when Baker likens Wikipedia to a leaf-raking project. In doing so, he creates a vivid picture of both the good and the bad that have evolved along with the site:

It was like a giant community leaf-raking project in which everyone was called a groundskeeper. Some brought very fancy professional metal rakes, or even back-mounted leaf-blowing systems, and some were just kids thrashing away with the sides of their feet or stuffing handfuls in the pockets of their sweatshirts, but all the leaves they brought to the pile were appreciated. And the pile grew and everyone jumped up and down in it having a wonderful time. And it grew some more, and it became the biggest leaf pile anyone had ever seen anywhere, a world wonder. And then self-promoted leaf-pile guards appeared, doubters and deprecators who would look askance at your proffered handful and shake their heads, saying that your leaves were too crumpled or too slimy or too common, throwing them to the side. And that was too bad. The people who guarded the leaf pile this way were called “deletionists.”

A few other favorite quotes:

Wikipedia flourished partly because it was a shrine to altruism—a place for shy, learned people to deposit their trawls.

All big Internet successes—e-mail, AOL chat, Facebook, Gawker, Second Life, YouTube, Daily Kos, World of Warcraft—have a more or less addictive component—they hook you because they are solitary ways to be social: you keep checking in, peeking in, as you would to some noisy party going on downstairs in a house while you’re trying to sleep.

The steady influx of top-hat-and-spatted sources elevated Wikipedia’s tone. (comment: I didn’t actually know how much of Wikipedia’s early material was dependent on old Encyclopedia Britannica’s that were in the public domain… interesting).

The main thing about Wikipedia is that it is fun and addictive – Jimbo Wales

‘Notability purges’ are being executed throughout Wikipedia by empire-building, wannabe tin-pot dictators masquerading as humble editors – Howard Tayler

And then somebody… a “vandal”—replaces the entire article with a single sentence: “Aging is what you get when you get freakin old old old.”… A minute later, you “revert” that anonymous editor’s edit, with a few clicks… You’ve just kept the aging article safe, for the moment. But you have to stay vigilant, because somebody might swoop in again at any time, and you’ll have to undo their harm with your power reverter ray. Now you’re addicted. You’ve become a force for good just by standing guard and looking out for juvenile delinquents.

There are more great quotes – many more- but I’ll leave it at that. By the way, if you’re interested in actually reading the part that ties to the book that is supposedly being reviewed, it starts around paragraph 22 or so (type “proficiency” into the Find box to be taken to it)…