Wikipedia Review: Opinions and Editorials

So what if it is broken?

February 11th, 2008 by The Review

This post was submitted to the Wikipedia Review forum in February 2008 by the Reviewer “Dogbiscuit”:

Dogbiscuit: Not so long ago, Gomi did a pretty good summary of what was wrong with Wikipedia (enshrined in blogland now). In recent posts, there have been some observations about why this is a problem. I’m sure others can put this in more learned ways, but I would like to set it out in simple terms, for public consumption.

Clearly, the context is that Wikipedia is omnipresent on the Internet, but I thought it would be useful to enumerate why this concerns me, or us. I don’t think it is simply a matter for academic accuracy, but a wider concern about the ability to misinform on a wider scale.

Here are my starters:

Humans are by nature lazy and although they should do the right thing and read around their subject, the fact is that they will not. Therefore the earliest and easiest found resources will become the de facto “common knowledge” regardless of their accuracy.
The general public are unaware of the battles that go on underneath the surface of Wikipedia, so are not equipped with sufficient cynicism to interpret entries, especially when distorted by NPOV negotiations on controversial subjects.
There are concerted efforts to redefine the public perception of controversial subjects, for example the sly redefinition of bestiality into the neologism of zoophilia. The amorality of Wikpedia is abused to assert that certain activities are morally acceptable.
TA variation on (1), here is an assumption that humans are capable of forming their own reasoned judgements which will be rational, whereas I hold that many grown ups are never capable of a sensible interpretation. I think the battles on Wikipedia are evidence enough. Therefore, presenting information that requires intellect to establish the veracity is dangerous and dishonest.

To me it is the same as when you read a press article when you were actually there, or even saw events on TV and you realise that if that small event is mis-reported, and the only way we can make our judgements is on information filtered through the media, then we have to question how valid any of our judgements on world affairs are. Given that the powers that be seem so keen on the press being an arbiter of Wikipedian article quality, and I saw a few of those battles on controversial subjects - that’s when the alarm bells rang for me.

Thoughts?

____________________

This post received an illuminating reply from scholar Jon Awbrey, (also known as The Review’s resident polymath, Jonny Cache) . This reply is reproduced in full below:

Jon Awbrey: I agree with most of what you say above, but there are some things that make me call Wikipediocy a «Danger To Society» and other choice words that I do not regard as hyperbole.

The gist of it for me goes to the very heart of what it takes to form a Democratic Society that is capable of governing itself wisely.

If the People have the Power, then the People need the wisdom to use that Power in a way that does not hurt themselves. Wisdom depends on having good information about real conditions, and knowledge of the ways of gaining knowledge. All those goodies depend on the widest possible distribution of education. For as long as I can remember educators who take the trouble to reflect on the practice of education have emphasized the fact that a live education requires a knowledge of the Way that knowledge is formed, not just a rote memorization of the current TOC.

But this is precisely the point where the Massive Achievement In Miseducation (MAIM) that we know as Wikipedia has managed to mangle all the best practices of our contemporary education enterprise to the point of becoming an utter mockery of the name Education.

And because this maiming goes on largely behind the scenes of Wikipediot cover pages the Public and the Media have yet to take widespread notice of the inherent danger to society.

Posted at 9:17 am, February 11th, 2008 by The Review in General Information |

5 Responses

CyclonicD2 Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 11:26 am
The first half of the post made a fairly good bit of sense.

Of course, the argument totally lost its punch with the second half. Jon Awbrey did what he does best - he just blindly attacks Wikipedia and its users as usual - how can one possibly have his arguments be taken seriously (”scholar”) when he refers to Wikipedians as “Wikipediots”?
Jon Awbrey Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Colonic,

Just because I wear sunglasses doesn’t mean I’m blind.

Usage Note —

The term “Wikipediot” is already e-scounced in The Urbane Dictionary (TUD) as a synonym for Wikipedian True Believer, to it, or not, one whose critical faculties are not entirely intact.

The use of the term “Wikipediot” therefore, is intended as an act of charity in that it does not chastis/ze all “Wikipedians”, a term that may then be used to refer without prejudice to anyone who edits or perhaps but avidly reads Wikipedia.

Though, of course, we all reconis/ze the dangers inherent in that.
CyclonicD2 Says:
February 16th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Whatever you say. I pretty much expected you to say all that, right down to calling me “Colonic”. You are far beneath being reasonable about things.
Somey Says:
February 16th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
It may be fair to characterize Jon’s criticisms of WP as “reflexive” in some cases, but they’re hardly “blind” - his activity on WP encompasses several years and many thousands of edits.

There are certain people, like my self and Mr. Awbrey here, who are so committed to an anti-WP stance that we find it difficult to use the word “Wikipedian,” simply because it implies a false respectability. It’s also a reaction to the near-obsessive use of the word “troll” by those being referred to. Meanwhile, I myself like to use “WP’er” because it’s a bit more value-neutral, but “Wikipediot” is actually in wider usage.

I’ve also seen “Wikipudlians,” “Wikipoopians,” “Wikiwankers,” “Wikipedophiles,” and “Wickedpedians,” just to name a few of my personal favorites… Anyway, dismissing an argument based on the use of a common epithet is somewhat disingenuous, possibly even a complete cop-out.

Of course, this is all just my two centavos.
Jon Awbrey Says:
February 18th, 2008 at 5:12 am
Hi Colonic,

Again I wish to emphasize that my drawing of the distinction between Wikipediots as a species and Wikipedians as a genus is carefully considered, is charitable to all those who may be deserving of human charity, and does not condemn whole cloth all who participate in Wikipedia, not even the Anglish contingent thereof.

Indeed, I can even cite notable cases of Generic Encyclopedes who act like specious Wikipediots only under circus-scribed conditions, like when they don the mantles of their ArbClonic Irresponsibilities.

It may help to think of the slim rude line between Wikipedians and Wikipediots in the following way:

It is very like the distinction between a Grasshopper and a Locust, really the same critter, but when a critical mass of them find themselves assembles under conditions of grass root insufficiency and thermone hyperstimulation, they sic transit gloriously mundanely over some sort of critical threshold, grow thick, horny carapaces, and act altogether like transformed creatures, Asininely Metamorphosed and not in any kind of Golden Ruly manner.

Really, they can’t help themselves, they are the victims of biochemical factors beyond their own control.

Categories

Archives

Meta:

Search

Blogroll

Recent Posts

So what if it is broken?

5 Responses

Leave a Comment