[X] My Assistant

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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?

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.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Tue 29th January 2008, 8:00pm

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.

Jon, that was interesting to have a clear restatement I guess another way of saying what you said is that it the work of an encyclopedia needs critical thinking, and Wikipedia has bastardised what critical thinking is.

I certainly found the discussions on source typing on the No Original Research page baffling because there was no debate on thinking through why source typing might or might not be relevant, but instead it was a distortion of "Wikipedia is not a primary source" and the logic seemed to be spawned from that incidental comment rather than the root aim of repeating only that which has been agreed by consensus to have already been reliably published or is of such general acceptance that there is no need to consider further.

I wonder if we will see a generation of college students weaned on Wikipedia undermining their lecturers: it says this on Wikipedia, my lecturer says different, I can see citations in Wikipedia, that lecturer had his own opinions, therefore from what I learnt at Wikipedia I must ignore him as an original thinker and go with consensus.

Perhaps Wikipedia will be the death of the informed commentator.

This post has been edited by dogbiscuit: Wed 30th January 2008, 3:06pm

... the work of an encyclopedia needs critical thinking, and Wikipedia has bastardised what critical thinking is.

Moreover, injecting critical thinking into the discussion pages will elicit cries that the critical thinker is a "tendentious editor" — that being one of the keywords appearing in some random WP:Rule that can be used to bash said critical thinker over the head.

Perhaps Wikipedia will be the death of the informed commentator.

I doubt it. Google's Blogger offers a venue for commentators of all stripes.

I think I can now expand the morality item on my list. Wikipedia is broken because it believes it can be amoral without causing harm, and its excuse for this is the assumption that "We are not censored" is the same as "We must speak as we find" . This is wrong on several counts, and as a high profile representative of the English speaking world, what it projects onto the Internet reflects on all of the potential contributors. We also need to consider the impact on the potential audience and consider whether there is a moral dimension to the way information is presented that needs to be considered.

I personally do not like the idea of being party to a project that revels in being able to have shocking and offensive content and that this is ok because of some greater cause.

This post has been edited by dogbiscuit: Wed 6th February 2008, 5:55pm

What a great comment. You've captured this so well.

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.

Jon Awbrey

I personally do not like the idea of being party to a project that revels in being able to have shocking and offensive content and that this is ok because of some greater cause.

I don't see the relation this has with your first paragraph. Or maybe I haven't grasped that part well.

I personally do not like the idea of being party to a project that revels in being able to have shocking and offensive content and that this is ok because of some greater cause.

I don't see the relation this has with your first paragraph. Or maybe I haven't grasped that part well.

Probably just my wittering ways confusing you. The gist of it is that there is an element of Wikipedia that knowingly enjoys the impact of its amoral stance, which actually makes it an immoral stance.

When I first was involved in Wikipedia as a naive editor of various non-academic cruft, it was fun to be part of something creating a more or less vaguely useful reference, that seemed to be attempting to be something good. These days, the devil you know of Wikipedia, is being operated as an attack site by various interest groups. I can even live with that if the processes are working to minimise and defend against it. When the processes encourage it being an attack site under some spurious argument of being uncensored, I get uncomfortable.

Interest groups are all over the place. They have one of the most popular site out there and it's free publicity and has some credibility. What a golden opportunity for such groups. What is said to be Wikipedia's strength is actually it's major weakness and the reason why it can not survive.

I personally do not like the idea of being party to a project that revels in being able to have shocking and offensive content and that this is ok because of some greater cause.

I don't see the relation this has with your first paragraph. Or maybe I haven't grasped that part well.

Probably just my wittering ways confusing you. The gist of it is that there is an element of Wikipedia that knowingly enjoys the impact of its amoral stance, which actually makes it an immoral stance.

When I first was involved in Wikipedia as a naive editor of various non-academic cruft, it was fun to be part of something creating a more or less vaguely useful reference, that seemed to be attempting to be something good. These days, the devil you know of Wikipedia, is being operated as an attack site by various interest groups. I can even live with that if the processes are working to minimise and defend against it. When the processes encourage it being an attack site under some spurious argument of being uncensored, I get uncomfortable.