Wikipedia: An Ephemeral Surrogate for The Universal Knowledge
- 6
- by Antonio Lupetti
- December 31, 2010
I think Wikipedia is an extraordinary example of what the collective knowledge, catalyzed by the Web, can realize with the help of anonymous volunteers scattered through out various parts of the world.
I think the millions of entries in the most popular online encyclopedia, which enclose a part of universal knowledge, are to some extents a common good which should be preserved. However, I think Wikipedia is the worst example of how the ambition to centralize human knowledge in one place, by giving voice to everyone without distinction, represents nothing more than a vain illusion.
The user generated content model, which is at the base of encyclopedia’s success, has a critical weak point that concerns the accuracy and reliability of all that is published on the site. Despite the efforts of moderators, Wikipedia is full of incorrect or inaccurate entries and often, people who consult its pages ignore this problem and assume to be true their content. In this “factory of knowledge”, moderators exert an immense power by performing the role of the “sheriffs” of universal knowledge. They filter submitted content and decide what can be published and what can’t. The question is, who among them has the adequate background to assess the merits of a specific topic? And which is the objective criterion used for evaluating the accuracy of entries?
It’s for this lack of accuracy that, in spite of the enormous success achieved, Wikipedia will never be a true compendium of human knowledge but, at most, nothing but a ephemeral surrogate for the universal knowledge.
Iran: l’esecuzione del programmatore Saeed Malekpour potrebbe essere imminente
- 13
- February 18, 2012
3 Fonts you can’t miss: – Junction http://bit.ly/yA2HqU – Governor http://bit.ly/zWAYaa – Carton http://bit.ly/zzed4F
Exclusive Interview with Brian Solis: Social Influence, Content Curation and Future of Social Media
- 2
- February 20, 2012
“which is the objective criterion used for evaluating the accuracy of entries?”
The objective criterion used on Wikipedia is that facts added to Wikipedia should reflect the consensus of reliable sources and should have links to those sources to support those facts. Where opinions are included these should be quoted from a respected source, with attribution.
This criterion has, in practice, proved to be an effective practical tool for people with differing opinions to arrive at an agreed version based on this criterion.
The process of arriving at this concensus may take some time but, provided people are agreed on this basic criterion, it does seem to work eventually. Where it doesn’t you will nearly always find one or both parties have rejected this criterion for some reason.
Wikipedia is therefore most definitely a surrogate for The Universal Knowledge. The licensing model however means that it will not be ephemeral. Todays Wikipedia content wil be reused and remixed and added to and editted long after both of us are dead.
You are very, very mistaken about the role of administrators on Wikipedia. They are not the “sherrifs” of the content, though they *do* have the ability to block editors or protect an article from being changed. However, for the vast majority of the content on the site, simple pruning can be done by anyone, not just an administrator.
“They filter submitted content and decide what can be published and what can’t” applies to a very, very select few articles, chief among them being articles about living people, and the reason for that protection is to prevent libelous comments from being inserted into articles.
“And which is the objective criterion used for evaluating the accuracy of entries?” Really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources are the “objective criterion” in question. If it’s a verifiable fact, it can be added. If it isn’t, it’s subject to removal by anyone at any time.
Wikipedia sucks. They intentionally censored out the fact that NH AG cum U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte believes she can threaten to arrest which reporters she does not like at publicly-advertised political rallies held on commercial property subject to substantial State and Local licensing and permitting.
Video: http://tinyurl.com/26wjsq6
Journal –
I wrote Congressman Adam Schiff about this:
http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2010/12/kingcast-open-letter-to-daniel-pearl.html
Their last excuse? I can’t prove Kelly knows about it. Too bad I served her at her house and the newspapers noted that I was trying to film her and ask her a question when I was kicked out of three (3) such events.
John McCain was at the last event and loves to eject darky journalists like me, ask Stephen Price.
This post is a good example of “throwing the baby with the bath water”. OK, user generated content is by definition prone to errors (willingly or not) but as the first comments above show, you mistakenly only look at the weakness and use this as an excuse to disregard the value. The reality is that the “millions of articles” are by no means an “ephemeral surrogate for the universal knowledge” (nor a “true compendium”, but rather the most fantastic collaborative effort to disseminate freely this “universal knowledge”. Forget for a while the few hundred pages that may no have the required attention (less than 1% of content). Wikipedia covers nearly all subjects, and offer anybody the opportunity to improve it. Most contributors do just that (improve), and not “preserve”. Knowledge is living, it is not something you froze and put in a museum. And its critical mass, along with its presence in dozens of languages, is a good indication it will last for many years. Besides, who told you that there are no errors or inaccuracies in “conventional” encyclopedias ? On the contrary, I seriously doubt that any other is updated more frequently and has more redactors. In addition, many efforts are made to verify sources, classify pages as stubs, “original research” etc. in order to improve constantly the quality.
I agree with you that to “centralize human knowledge in one place [is] a vain illusion”. But where on wikipedia did you read that as their goal ? It’s not. They just want to be “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.” And boy, that goal they did achieve !
i am more convinced by the comments than by the article.
I agree with allwyn :)