There's no doubt that wikipedia and wookieepedia can be great references for Star Wars information, especially the more obscure EU facts that would take forever for us to look up within our own libraries. It's also true that given the lack of security in wikis as they are open-source you cannot always fully trust what they contain. Both of these are clearly established, and anyone who uses wikis probably knows them. I'm not going to rant on something you already know.

This is not about inaccuracies, getting dates wrong, or mistakenly inventing characters given confusion with conflicting EU sources (ex. Colton Antilles). When humans run the wikis, human error will be made, and that's a drawback, but an acceptable and reasonable one.

This is about when wiki authors cross the line and abuse their power to skew articles to satisfy their aims, either slandering an individual, making irrelevant points on an individual's personal views that have nothing to do with their work or life, or inserting opinion into what should only be fact. These are all too common, and all too dangerous.

In George Orwell's masterpiece book 1984, he wrote of a future totalitarian society that maintains control based upon the illusion of their seeming invincibility and infallibility. By distorting the truth, making up facts, and even changing history and the past to make it agree with current rhetoric, the fictional Party maintained absolute control. They had a secret police and had surveillance over everyone, but that was just to catch the troublemakers. The true methos through which they controlled society was through information control "he who controls the present controls the past". They would change facts and eliminate all evidence of the change so that there was no proof alteration had even occurred.

Such is the case with wikis. When a few individuals control information for the masses, and those masses put absolute faith or at the minimum high credence in what is written, those individuals in a sense control the truth itself as defined within the wiki. While everyone may not believe what they read, it is undoubtedly within human nature to consider information presented to you, even though its credibility is questionable. We may read a fact about an individual that we believe is exaggerated or false, but deep down inside we mull it over and consider the possibility of it being truthful.

Look at Hitler: in his speeches, he said many outrageous and obviously false things. But he was in a position of trust and power, so the masses took to heart and considered his statements, considered the level of truthfulness they contained. Even the most rational German mind was swayed into believing many of the tenets of Nazism.

"With great power comes great responsibility", and those who edit wikis must use that power responisibly. Control of information is the most decisive and dangerous type of control anyone can acquire. Even within simple Star Wars articles there is a tendency to interject theory and supposition, such as examining Palpatine's motives or the underlying tones of certain events. That is a great part of being a fan, and absoultely belongs in a blog or discussion, but not within an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are NOT for opinion, they're for facts. If I look up Republican in the encyclopedia, I should get an overview of their history and beliefs, successes and failures of policy. I shouldn't get opinion on whether or not they are good or bad for the country. It's that simple.

This is not a tirade on anti-wikism. This isn't calling those dedicate individuals who edit them bad. This isn't flaming wikis or their creators. This is merely a call to attention on the dangers of wikis and the dangers of information control in the wrong hands.

Sure, in the grand scheme it is silly to get your panties in a knot over false statements or biased rhetoric in an online encyclopedia, especially when it comes to Star Wars topics. But as we have seen recently with irrelevant and biased commentary on one great individual in the wikis, the danger of information control is clear and present, even in such an area. When the attempt to make biased and irrelevant comments in an attempt to damage the reputation of a respected member of the Star Wars community is made, then the danger becomes real.

The danger crossed the line recently, in the Star Wars community where you'd almost least expect it. So to those who write and edit wikis, exercise caution, and exercise facts and truth, not distorted opinion and hearsay. And to those who read wikis, continue to do so, but be careful what you believe, or one day you may see in a wiki that 2+2=5 and you'll believe it, and the cycle of information control will continue.