The tremendous success of the Wikipedia project is familiar to regular Internet consumers, but the project is not without its critics. Though many people voice concern or dissatisfaction with the open content encyclopedia, the critics I tend to run into seem to be older and infrequent Internet users who raise two primary objections:

1) Why would anyone freely contribute without motivation?

2) Won’t the intent of malicious users detract from accuracy?

Thus far, the success of open content (as well as open source) projects stands in opposition to these objections. Granted, some degree of moderation occurs to prevent large-scale corruption, but as a whole open content seems to work. The objections above, at least for some people, may stem from particular assumptions about the typical behavior of human beings–whether religious values or secular perceptions–but widespread use of the Internet provides a different perspective regarding human nature. Regarding the concerns above:

1) Human beings are not exclusively motivated by greed. Other factors (the quest for knowledge, the desire to share) often achieve greater importance, even if these factors do not translate directly to an accumulation of wealth.

2) People are not inherently malicious. Though malicious individuals exist, they are the minority of a genuinely good population.

Of course, the sample space of open content users does not encompass the entirety of humanity; perhaps chaos would ensue if everyone on Earth were given Internet access and free reign. Nevertheless, I am optimistic that collaborative Internet initiatives will play an important role in shaping a culture previously defined largely by corporate and religious dogma.