Power of Wikipedia + Lack of Accountability = Bad News, Does anyone disagree with that? Options

[Kato]

Let's cut back to the chase:

• Due to the power Wikipedia has attained in the world of information, and the fact that this power is wielded without the standards of accountability society traditionally requires, Wikipedia's model presents serious problems. (examples are plenty of the problems that this lack of accountability has created)

Does anyone disagree with that statement?

[Angela Kennedy]

Let's cut back to the chase:

• Due to the power Wikipedia has attained in the world of information, and the fact that this power is wielded without the standards of accountability society traditionally requires, Wikipedia's model presents serious problems. (examples are plenty of the problems that this lack of accountability has created)

Does anyone disagree with that statement?

Hi Kato,

I broadly agree with the statement. My only argument in qualification would be that ‘traditional’ requirements of ‘standards of accountability’ are themselves subject to power relations (so therefore are subject to being applied inconsistently and oppressively, or being gerrymandered).

I do think Wikipedia has serious problems in its claims to be producing ‘knowledge’, and wields inordinate power in various ways (some of which are only just becoming more evident, and others which may not even be evident as yet.)

The claims to NPOV and SPOV are often hilariously ironic- they are most often made without any careful consideration of the problems of claims to ‘objectivity’ or 'neutrality' and how these might be addressed. My background is in feminist research epistemology and methodology - I‘m most certainly NOT‘ anti-science‘ - and feminists are among those that HAVE produced literature on the problem of claims to objectivity being different from actually achieving objectivity, and not necessarily as a ‘strong programme‘ participant (though there is a lot of that about, as in all areas of social science), but within empiricist commitments to the possibility of scientific and other objectivity .

Often at Wikipedia there is an unpleasant distortion of the ‘SPOV’ whereby appeals to authority are often paraded in place of careful, sober logical evaluation of claims made in science. I think this is a major problem on Wikipedia, possibly related to the personal philosophies of key personnel there. The resort to the ad hominem and operation of power status (POV- pushing admins a major problem) in place of reasoned, logical discussion is endemic there, even on ‘science‘ subjects.

I don’t necessarily think this is unique to Wikipedia- but its so-called global ‘status’ as a source of ‘knowledge’ makes for grave concerns in this area, yes.

How to address them- don’t know. I’ve obviously had my fingers burned and my representation placed under sustained attack, with real world effects, for example. Obviously there are many stories with similarities to my own. Somewhere like WR gets labelled on WP as an ‘attack site’ or a “BADSITE” as a way of trivialising and pathologising any concerns that might be brought up - which would be laughable, but we don’t know how much that sort of WP lexicon or way of thinking is going to be taken up in the real world- another potentially big problem.

So yes, it’s a fair statement to make.