Part I
Most of you no doubt know far more about Wikipedia - the encyclopedia on the Web written not by experts but, well, by everyone - than I do. I of course had been hearing about it for a few years, but I confess I did not take a careful look until a few days ago, when a couple of entries about me came up on a Google search. In a nice coincidence, there was an excellent piece about Wikipedia on ABC's Nightline the other night, right before the piece on cell phones as bling in which I got to utter one good line.
I've been big fan of encyclopedias almost all of my life - in fact, ever since I read the Encyclopedia Galactica entries in Isaac Asimov's Foundation series. Decades later, I found old Encylcopedia Britannicas to be great sources of information, especially about the ancient world and Victorian times. My 1954 Encyclopedia Britannica was my single best resource in writing The Plot to Save Socrates - newer additions trim or delete older entries, so they have room for new information, such as the human genome project, which you can find just about everywhere.
I'm very impressed with Wikipedia - not just with the range of entries, but the way they are discussed and usually improved by Wiki readers, who can easily edit and correct any errors. The problem, obviously, is that not only can errors be made in the first place, but in the corrections. But the solution resides in the collection of minds that sooner or later read an entry and its corrections. From what I've seen, in perusing entries on topics I know something about, the process works. The more people refining an entry, the better it is.
This represents a very profound change in the way knowledge in general and encyclopedias in particular have been presented to us. Up until Wikipedia, a small group of experts decided what went into encyclopedias (I've served in this role for various encyclopedias myself.) Entries were very carefully scrutinized by editors, but once they passed through the gate, who could remove them from the encyclopedic grounds, who could correct or refine them? Only the same group of experts and editors, the next time around, in the next edition.
Newspapers and radio and television news and documentary shows work pretty much the same way. With the exception of letters to the editor, and the equivalent on radio and the television (call-ins from the listeners and viewers on some shows), everything the public gets is filtered through editors and producers - the gatekeepers of media.
Blogs have offered a no-gate alternative to news media on the Web. And Wikipedia is now doing the same for the venerable encyclopedia.
It operates not primarily on money, not on the selection of experts with demonstrable knowledge, but on the collective brainpower of our species.
It might fail, in the end, if not enough people join in the process. But I think it will succeed. So, get over there and put your two or more cents in. Chances are you know more about at least one entry than is currently posted there.
Part II: The Forces of Light vs. Darkness
So, I've continued my reading - and writing - on Wikipedia this week. And I noticed - and slightly participated in - a very interesting and, I think, significant occurrence yesterday.
An article on Pericles was selected by the editors as a "Featured Article". This lands it on the front page of Wikipedia. Which of course also lands it in the sights of anyone who want to do a little good-natured - and bad-natured - mischief.
Poor Pericles got plenty of both. These ranged from playing games with the grammar to just stupid obscenities (in contrast to intelligent obscenities - see my blog post in support of Thom York several months ago). I corrected a small, dignified vandalism that changed "was" to "is" in the first paragraph, which was otherwise all past tense ("Pericles was...").
My favorite was someone who came on at least half a dozen times, and changed "Perikles" (an alternate English spelling of Pericles) to Pickles.
And every time that change was made, one of a few people came right back with an edit that restored Pickles to Perikles.
Now, not to make too much of this, but it suddenly hit me that right there, on Wikipedia, I was seeing a sample of the contest between creative and destructive impulses that besets everyone - a microcosm of the battle between those who build and those who tear down that has always characterized our species, and likely always will.
On the one hand, some people add value to whatever their piece of the world. The guy who sells hot pretzels on the corner makes it a better place, with more to offer, than just a sidewalk and street with people rushing by. On the other hand, someone who throws an empty Snapple bottle on that same street makes it worse. It's no big deal, either way. But selling pretzels helps and throwing bottles hurts.
The world of ideas has always had both types of people, long before Wiki. The reason I have a low opinion of many critics (see my Of What Value Are Critics?)is that they tend to throw bottles, detract from creations and our understanding of them, rather than help. In contrast, the movie-maker, the songwriter, the tv producer, even the closet poet are all at least trying to add something to the world - to give it something that wasn't quite there before. They might not succeed, but at least they're trying.
Over on Wiki, people who write articles like the one on Pericles are trying to add something to the world. Not only in the content of that article, and many others, but in the daring, intellectually dangerous process of leaving it open to everyone's edit. Sure, a little mischief can be funny, and in that sense add a little humor to the world. Stephen Colbert's little game with elephants, in which he encouraged viewers to go on Wiki and write nonsense about the beasts, was worth a few chuckles.
But at the end of the day, the more lasting contribution will come from the accurate knowledge that Wikipedia is now making freely available to everyone. And an important part of that knowledge will be how to combat intellectual vandalism without succumbing to the authoritarian impulse. Wikipedia banned Colbert, in frustration over his joke. (Or was a sock-puppet banned - an account run by someone else, pretending to be Colbert.) But the response to Perikles and pickles yesterday was far better - correct it, don't lock the vandal out. Therein lies the most enlightened path of all.
Useful links:
Wikipedia: The Open Gates of Knowledge 20-minute podcast (Light On Light Through)
diGGin Round: Further Adventures in Gate-Opening 20-minute podcast (Light On Light Through)
How Important Are Critics? 5-minute podcast (Ask Lev)
Digg and Wikipedia: Further Adventures in Gate-Opening blog post
Digg and the One-Man Truth Squad blog post
2 comments:
Wikipedia is astonishing, liberating and uniquely human. I don't know of another epistemological feat that even comes close.
The whole point, the very point about Wikipedia is that its doors are (relatively) wide open. There will always be people ready to rush in and muddy the place with their feet, or kick something over, and that's human nature. The point is that if the place is self-regulating, people *care*, and they will fix it themselves. They feel part of it, part of the staff, not just a bystander/punter.
I dare anyone to go into Wikipedia and forge an article on a subject in such a manner that it's obvious junk, and have it go unnoticed for very long.....
As to the "misleading the next generation" codswallop bandied around by certain knee-jerk reactionaries.....well. I'm sure they would have a point there, if they could themselves cite another source of knowledge that was 100% accurate, **and as easily amendable**. :)
These are exactly the same thoughts you raise in your blog post, but I feel strongly about them enough to reiterate, if less lucidly.
.....
How much have you written in Wikipedia, Paul?
I've spotten a few minor holes I'd like to plug with articles, over the last few months - a few on obscure computer games, a few on locations in Cyprus I know. Within the next 6 weeks I plan to write them.....
You made your points at least as lucidly as mine, Mike!
You can see all of my contributions on Wikipedia as follows: Go to: User:PaulLev - then click on User Contributions on the lefthand side.
You should definitely jump in and edit whereever you can on Wiki (I've been so busy in the past few months, I've done little - I had productive streak there in the Fall). The encyclopedia depends on good people like you adding your knowledge.
By the way, as long as we're talking about gate-opening - have you tried Digg? I'm PaulLev there, too. You should get an account there, if you don't have one already.
Post a Comment