"The sum of all knowledge", REALLY, Jimbo? Options

[Angela Kennedy]

As WR readers may know I joined Wikipedia in September 2007 because I advocate for the ME/CFS and Lyme communities. I was (still am) concerned to ensure that those groups, and those people supporting them such as myself, are not misrepresented, and this unfortunately had been happening, on the Simon Wessely article and talk pages at Wikipedia.

But I wasn’t comfortable being a ‘Wikipedian’ I will admit, for the following reasons for starters, which I did put up on my talk page (that went down well!):

I will make it quite clear immediately that I have a number of problems with the concept of Wikipedia, and the way Wikipedia is run. My particular concerns are the representation or misrepresentation of 'knowledge', power relationships within the set-up, and claims of 'neutrality' and 'objectivity' followed by partisan behaviour. This is a general concern I have with many aspects of political and social systems, and is not limited to Wikipedia.

I also am sceptical of the Jimbo Wales claim to make Wikipedia "The sum of all knowledge". I feel that was a rather silly and trite thing to say, for all sorts of reasons related to the contested concept of what is 'knowledge' and the logical fallacy of claiming a. that knowledge is finite and b. one entity can possess the whole lot.

So, one of my concerns is broadly Wikipedia, with all its problems, as an arbiter of what is to pass as ‘knowledge’.

Another is the Jimbo Wales claim as stated above. I couldn’t find a direct quote on this until Thekohser very kindly pointed me in the direction of the possible origin of this oft-quoted claim:

message to the world from September 2004.

Our mission is to give freely the sum of the world's knowledge to every single person on the planet in the language of their choice, under a free license, so that they can modify, adapt, reuse, or redistribute it, at will.

That's what I can dig up in just 10 minutes. I'm sure more dedicated research could find when and where it was first uttered, but that September 2004 seems like a good candidate for now.

I have never seen this claim treated critically by the print or electronic media.

I guess what really concerns me is that Wikipedia is remarkably bereft of critical reflection about the problems around construction of ‘knowledge’. For such a totalising claim to be made and quoted without critical reflection by Wales and repeated by Wikipedians (let alone the media at large) rings alarm bells for me. I think it has potentially massive adverse ramifications in all areas of public discourse- especially given the ubiquity of the site as a resource, but maybe I’m being a worry wort…

I would like to know what others think about the issue of knowledge with regard to the Wales statement, but also generally (and in the context of the other comments I made perhaps?).

I think in time more people are going to have to tackle these problems of Wikipedia in depth, whether that be within print and electronic media articles, or academic publication, and from what I‘ve seen, WR has a potential role in that? Have other WR readers been thinking along similar lines?…

[Milton Roe]

I would like to know what others think about the issue of knowledge with regard to the Wales statement, but also generally (and in the context of the other comments I made perhaps?).

I think in time more people are going to have to tackle these problems of Wikipedia in depth, whether that be within print and electronic media articles, or academic publication, and from what I‘ve seen, WR has a potential role in that? Have other WR readers been thinking along similar lines?…

We've been thinking about it, but personally, it only makes my head spin. I wish Jimbo had had the balls to say "We want to provide the world with the sum of verifiable statements from reliable sources".

"Uh, Mr. Wales, I suppose verifiable means you can look them up elsewhere if you want?"
"Yes."
"What does 'reliable' mean, in this context?"
"Well, it means if it says something, then it's likely to be correct."
"As in "true""
"Yes. It doesn't count as knowledge if it's not correct, now does it?"
"So you're interested in what's TRUE?"
"I didn't say that."
"I thought you did."
"No, I can't tell what's true. All I can tell is what's verifiable and reliable."
"What's reliable"
"I answered that."

This could have been good.

[dogbiscuit]

Our mission is to give freely the sum of the world's knowledge to every single person on the planet in the language of their choice, under a free license, so that they can modify, adapt, reuse, or redistribute it, at will.

The depressing thing about that is that this is said in the full knowledge that GFDL allows things to be done for good or bad.


We'll gather all the human knowledge, then let it be corrupted and perverted, and that's fine by me, not my problem.

In fact, let's short circuit the time-scale and do it on Wikipedia while we produce it.

[wikiwhistle]

"No, I can't tell what's true. All I can tell is what's verifiable and reliable."

I think this is due to the 'religion' of Wales himself, i.e. people have said he's an objectivist or something.

also the policy on 'reliable sources' now redirects to the 'verifiability' policy, doesn't it?

"Nothing is true, everything is permitted".


Angela makes a good point and I hadn't thought of it like that before. It's not necessarily 'wrong' though, perhaps.

They could call it "the sum of what most people believe is knowledge." But that wouldn't be as good a sound bite

"the sum of consensus reality"? This is getting more 'chaos magic' by the minute.

[Moulton]

"Reality is just a collective hunch." --Jane Wagner and Lily Tomlin

[guy]

I once pointed out that "The sum of all knowledge" would entitle me to write an article about my road, listing all the houses, noting which ones had garages and extensions. (Copious photos would probably get round WP:V.) It is knowledge, however trivial.

[Moulton]

Worse, yet, it would both entitle and oblige me to publish my otherwise obscure results on the Theory of Emotions and Learning, notwithstanding the fact that being a subject-matter expert on one's own research is an automatic COI and OR violation.

[Saltimbanco]

I think what Jimbo actually said was, "the scum of all human knowledge."

[Jon Awbrey]

As WR readers may know I joined Wikipedia in September 2007 because I advocate for the ME/CFS and Lyme communities. I was (still am) concerned to ensure that those groups, and those people supporting them such as myself, are not misrepresented, and this unfortunately had been happening, on the Simon Wessely article and talk pages at Wikipedia.

But I wasn’t comfortable being a ‘Wikipedian’ I will admit, for the following reasons for starters, which I did put up on my talk page (that went down well!):

I will make it quite clear immediately that I have a number of problems with the concept of Wikipedia, and the way Wikipedia is run. My particular concerns are the representation or misrepresentation of 'knowledge', power relationships within the set-up, and claims of 'neutrality' and 'objectivity' followed by partisan behaviour. This is a general concern I have with many aspects of political and social systems, and is not limited to Wikipedia.

I also am sceptical of the Jimbo Wales claim to make Wikipedia "The sum of all knowledge". I feel that was a rather silly and trite thing to say, for all sorts of reasons related to the contested concept of what is 'knowledge' and the logical fallacy of claiming a. that knowledge is finite and b. one entity can possess the whole lot.

So, one of my concerns is broadly Wikipedia, with all its problems, as an arbiter of what is to pass as ‘knowledge’.

Another is the Jimbo Wales claim as stated above. I couldn’t find a direct quote on this until Thekohser very kindly pointed me in the direction of the possible origin of this oft-quoted claim:

message to the world from September 2004.

Our mission is to give freely the sum of the world's knowledge to every single person on the planet in the language of their choice, under a free license, so that they can modify, adapt, reuse, or redistribute it, at will.

That's what I can dig up in just 10 minutes. I'm sure more dedicated research could find when and where it was first uttered, but that September 2004 seems like a good candidate for now.

I have never seen this claim treated critically by the print or electronic media.

I guess what really concerns me is that Wikipedia is remarkably bereft of critical reflection about the problems around construction of ‘knowledge’. For such a totalising claim to be made and quoted without critical reflection by Wales and repeated by Wikipedians (let alone the media at large) rings alarm bells for me. I think it has potentially massive adverse ramifications in all areas of public discourse — especially given the ubiquity of the site as a resource, but maybe I’m being a worry wort …

I would like to know what others think about the issue of knowledge with regard to the Wales statement, but also generally (and in the context of the other comments I made perhaps?).

I think in time more people are going to have to tackle these problems of Wikipedia in depth, whether that be within print and electronic media articles, or academic publication, and from what I‘ve seen, WR has a potential role in that? Have other WR readers been thinking along similar lines?…

Angela,

Sorry I couldn't get to this earlier — me 'n' Tom been busy attending our wiki-φuneral —

All of the things that you say here are very apt and on target. If I hadn't already said the same things to no avail several gadshillion times over the last 3 years, I might still credit that Crowd with ears to hear — but my present attitude is that all of us are wasting our breath if we think that anyone in that Crowd is listening.

The accumulation of my experiences and reflections over the past 3 years tell me that we are dealing with a far deeper and more recalcitrant problem than the casual observer can grasp in the odd moment of acquaintance with Wikipedia.

We can forget all that Bull about the Sum of Knowledge.

The dynamics that drives Wikipedia is not a love of knowledge or a desire for knowledge but an attempt to control the resources of knowledge, to exert dominion over a commodity without having to do the hard labor that it takes to acquire or even appreciate that knowledge.

I think you will probably recognize this theme.

Jon

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Tue 22nd April 2008, 2:42pm

[Milton Roe]

The dynamics that drives Wikipedia is not a love of knowledge or a desire for knowledge but an attempt to control the resources of knowledge, to exert dominion over a commodity without having to do the hard labor that it takes to acquire or even appreciate that knowledge.

I think you will probably recognize this theme.

Jon

Yes, and also, Angela, you should know that Hell is full of people who want to get really good without practicing a lot.