The ‘Undue Weight’ of Truth on Wikipedia, Chronicle of Higher Education Options

[Newsfeed]

The ‘Undue Weight’ of Truth on Wikipedia

Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription)

By Timothy Messer-Kruse • For the past 10 years I've immersed myself in the details of one of the most famous events in American labor history, the Haymarket riot and trial of 1886. Along the way I've written two books and a couple of articles about the …

[Malik Shabazz]

Regretfully, I haven't finished reading Timothy Messer-Kruse's book, but it does seem well-researched. It is also unfortunate that Paul Avrich, whose book is the standard text on the Haymarket incident, isn't alive to defend himself.

With respect to WP:V and WP:UNDUE, I stand by what I wrote, although I might have picked a better example than the color of the sky (which can be easily verified). I'm not in a position to judge whether Avrich or Messer-Kruse is truer to the evidence, and where Messer-Kruse's seems proud to be an iconoclast, Avrich's account is consistent with prior scholarship.

Short of blowing up the encyclopedia (and I know some of you would like to do that), what would you do?

This post has been edited by Malik Shabazz:

[thekohser]

Short of blowing up the encyclopedia (and I know some of you would like to do that), what would you do?

Allow Messer-Kruse to edit the appropriate Wikipedia article about Haymarket, such that the encyclopedia then includes statements such as, "Traditionally, historians have concluded that X is true; however, more recent scholarship by Messer-Kruse contends that Y is true." As the contentious information is further discussed by the historiographical experts, over time, perhaps other experts will help to edit the article so that an even more nuanced understanding is achieved.

Telling Messer-Kruse that his scholarship is not permitted in Wikipedia is about the dumbest way to proceed.

[Malik Shabazz]

Short of blowing up the encyclopedia (and I know some of you would like to do that), what would you do?

Allow Messer-Kruse to edit the appropriate Wikipedia article about Haymarket, such that the encyclopedia then includes statements such as, "Traditionally, historians have concluded that X is true; however, more recent scholarship by Messer-Kruse contends that Y is true." As the contentious information is further discussed by the historiographical experts, over time, perhaps other experts will help to edit the article so that an even more nuanced understanding is achieved.

Telling Messer-Kruse that his scholarship is not permitted in Wikipedia is about the dumbest way to proceed.

That's what I proposed, more or less; he wanted to rewrite the article to say the same thing his book says (i.e., the minority opinion).

By the way, the entire article has been posted here.