On Wikipedia there is an epic "war of the Rights" about the origin of the coronavirus. Perhaps it will never end - but this is normal

Retelling of the text CNET

One of the main issues of our time - where did the new coronavirus come from? So far, its natural origin is the main hypothesis, but recently another, alternative - about a leak from the laboratory in Ujan. However, there are no links to it in the main English-language article of the Wikipedia about the Covid-19-supporters of the “natural” hypothesis are still won in endless disputes of the vulture editors. These disputes reach such an intensity that editors are already spending more time on them than writing the articles of the encyclopedia and the right to them. Read our retelling of the big material of the CNET publication about the “VISITION WAR” on Wikipedia, which unfolded because of the Covid-19.

A dope is a plant with a sweet smell and flowers in the form of a bell. After the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, many drew attention to the similarity between the appearance of its prickly seed boxes and a particle (virion) of the coronavirus. Someone even recorded a video for Tiktok that the seeds of a dope allegedly help from Covid. This, of course, is not true - these seeds contain a powerful poison that causes hallucinations, paralysis and even death. Nevertheless, several families in the Indian village in the state of Andra-Pradesh resorted to such a method of self-medication, which led to emergency hospitalization of 12 people.

When the doctor of Net Khussain from Kerala learned about this case, she decided to make a list of unverified methods of Covid treatment for Wikipedia. Khussain is one of almost 100 thousand volunteers-editors of Wikipedia engaged in editing articles about Covid. From the very beginning of the Pandemia of Coronavirus, she carefully documented her course in India in the main online encyclopedia.

Each Wikipedia article about Covid-19 receive at least two edits per minute, and the editors have to constantly ensure that there are no vandalism or misinformation among them. But the Wikipedia editors themselves have been arguing among themselves about the answer to one of the fundamental issues of the pandemic: where did the new coronavirus come from? The generally accepted hypothesis is such that it appeared naturally in the population of bats. However, the other states that he could get out of the Institute of Virology in the Chinese city of Ujan, not far from the first hearth of the pandemic, where scientists have long studied coronaviruses of bats.

In support of the last hypothesis, there are both objective data and many speculations and conspiracy theories. There are no consensus about it among journalists, scientists, nor editors of the most popular online encyclopedia. The question from a purely scientific plane turned into a political one-and the Wikipedia burst out a “war” between the editors-and-arms of different hypotheses of the emergence of a new coronavirus.

So far, supporters of the “natural” hypothesis manage to prevail: if the “leakage from the laboratory” is actively discussed not only in social networks, but also in the front of the most authoritative world media, then in the English-language article of Wikid-19 it is not mentioned. The whole discussion on this subject can only be found on the “Discussion” tab, where editors are divided by their ideas to improve or correct articles. Fierce disputes are often held there - and in these disputes there is a key to Wikipedia's success.

One of the fundamental principles of online encyclopedia is that the article should present all important views on the problem set forth in authoritative sources. Some topics do not cause any polemic: for example, an article about a small Scottish village Eyvernish takes only three lines of text, and in the “Discussion” section is empty. But the discussion of the article about the Covid-19 in volume is already many times higher than the article itself.

It began with the fact that in May 2020, Roberto Fortich, an economist and volunteer editor of Wikipedia published a survey on this article on the topic: is it worth referring to the existence of an alternative theory of the origin of the new coronavirus due to leakage from the laboratory? Of the 19 editors participating in the poll, 13 voted against this hypothesis. In the article on Covid-19, it is still not mentioned-but this does not mean that the disputes among the editors have subsided.

The discussion about the leakage of the new coronavirus from the Ugan laboratory continues to this day-now not only in the main article about the Covid-19, but also in the adjacent. The sections “Discussion” in articles on the SARS-COV-2 virus itself, about the same laboratory (“Ulya Institute of Virology”) and about misinformation related to the pandemia of the new coronavirus, are filled with texts with quotes from the media and other sources. Many articles are closed to edit new or inexperienced editors.

In February 2021, one of the editors created a new article entitled “The Covid-19 Hypothesis on the Laboratory Dream”. A month after its appearance, another editor celebrated it as a “rapid removal”. This article after nine days of fierce discussions was nevertheless deleted .

The decision is based on several existing Wikipedia practices. One of them is known among the editors as WP: Medrs (guide to authoritative sources in medicine) and boils down to the fact that the articles on the “biomedicine” theme should contain links to “reliable secondary sources published by the third party and most accurately reflecting the modern level of knowledge”.

Disputes about the legitimacy of the application of this practice occupy thousands of pages of text. There are two main camps: supporters of the same approach believe that Medrs is suitable for sources of information about the origin of the virus, and supporters of another - that it is not possible here. After all, this practice has developed to prevent dangerous misinformation on the Wikipedia pages, which millions of people use to consult their health. For example, a dope treatment would never have passed the editorial filter - after all, the consequences can be fatal.

But the origin of the virus is another matter. Can a description of the course of the investigation about the origin of the new coronavirus “Biomedical information” can be considered? And what to do, other editors say if, over time, information in authoritative sources such as The New York Times becomes enough to begin to seriously consider the hypothesis of the laboratory origin of the new coronavirus? To observe one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia - the neutrality of the point of view - it must be included in articles about Covid, they say.

At some point, the disputes of the editors in the articles about Covid-19 reached such a tension that they began to lead to bullying and threats, and they had to allow them in the last instance, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee is a kind of supreme court in the context of an online encyclopedia. Some members of this committee are younger than Wikipedia itself-for example, 20-year-old Kevin Lee, a student programmer from Stanford University. He says that the dispute about the origin of the Covid-19 is not unique in its intensity: similar “Frighting wars” have already become out of control in articles on the most resonant topics such as abortion, cintology or conflict in Northern Ireland.

False in this “war” are editors banners for constant rewriting of articles or attracting external people who make their own editing in favor of the hypothesis about the laboratory origin of coronavirus. As the “laboratory” hypothesis gained legitimacy, some banned rehabilitated and diluted.

Disputes reached such an intensity that the “Communication” section became practically unreadable because of the endless mutual accusations of editors, walking in a circle with the same arguments. Wikipedia editors spend more time on these disputes than the actual writing and editing articles, Dr. Net Khussein complains. And this is a big long-term problem, she believes: although formally, the Wikipedia has almost 300 thousand vulture editors, several tens of thousands of enthusiasts make most of the work. And such fierce disputes lead not only to the burnout of experienced editors, but also scare away beginners - which can lead to a "brain leak".

On the one hand, on the same ethical problem - how to illuminate the hypothesis about the laboratory origin of coronavirus - many media, social networks, and so on are faced. On the other hand, Wikipedia is unique, and so far she managed to remain faithful to her basic principles. At least, pseudotage of the dope will not fall on its pages. To the dispute about whether the “laboratory” hypothesis to the page on coronavirus should even join the creator of Wikipedia Jimmy Wels: he noted that the consensus in the media shifted with “this is extremely unlikely and similar to the theory of conspiracy” to “this is one of the possible hypotheses”.

Probably, these disputes will never end - after all, Wikipedia is not a result, but a process. In the end, even the concept of flat earth has its own page on Wikipedia, and it reflects the development of ideas about the structure of the world over time.

Retold Alexei Kovalev