Recently, I've been reading a lot about a simple experiment that's getting a lot of press. This experiment seems so simple, in fact, that many people assume that it must be terribly subtle and complex. It isn't. This experiment Wikipedia seems complex only because it ignores tradition and common sense. Tradition, after all argues that decisions are best left to experts. Wikipedia however is based on the idea that experts should not be the only "gatekeepers" of information. That information should be "free" not like free as in beer but like without confinement or gates.
Unsurprisingly, many experts hate this idea. Encyclopedia Britannica's very public fight with Wikipedia is one of the most public and telling examples. However other examples are present in both print and blogs across the web. The blogs of the free range librarian are another example of the genre. In one post she writes:
"In Wikipedia's current manifestation, all contributors are on equal footing in terms of editing power and authority (and that's not even getting into the issue of scope; Wikipedia is built haphazardly, like building a library by buying the first fifty books you find walking into Borders). With no editorial workflow, no significant mechanisms for (and no emphasis on) acknowledging authority, and no way to give expertise its due, Wikipedia functions primarily as high-octane troll food, fueling lengthy "Lord of the Flies"-style shout-downs between, on the one hand, cranks and malcontents, and on the other, the vastly outnumbered experts who care to be bothered to contribute in the first place."
In short, she contends that Wikipedia's dependence on primarily knowledge renders it unreliable. The implication is that Wikipedia cannot be considered reliable until it mirrors the librarian's respect for expertise. Professor Paul Cartledge of Cambridge University perfectly encapsulates the distrust of the masses at the base of this type of criticism when he says that academics:
Professor Cartledge, however was not referring to Wikipedia at all. This excerpt actually refers to the criticism that many academics in Athens shared regarding this idea called Democracy.
Aristotle and Plato, to name but two of the most famous names, considered the ability to govern to be beyond the ability of the common man. The masses could not be trusted. They could be too easily led down dangerous and foolish paths. Demagogues skillful in rhetoric could shift the direction of a nation on a whim.
Government was too important an institution to leave in the hands of the governed. Plato and Aristotle's criticisms like those of their spiritual descendants were eloquent. But, this idea although simple and counterintuitive, was powerful. Democracy was attempted over and over again. Eventually this idea would change the world in ways that no one could have imagined.
Schneider, K. G. "Free Range Librarian." 22 Mar. 2007
http://freerangelibrarian.com/archives/052905/wikipedia.php
Strenski, Ellen, comp. "The Wikipedia/Encyclopaedia Britannica Controversy." University of California, Irvine. 22 Mar. 2007 -http://compositioncafe.com/25950/wikicontroversy.html-.
Cartledge, Paul. "Critics and Critiques of Athenian Democracy". BBC. 22 Mar. 2007 http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/greeks/greekcritics_01.shtml
Cartledge, Paul. "Critics and Critiques of Athenian Democracy". BBC. 22 Mar. 2007 http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/greeks/greekdemocracy_01.shtml
No comments:
Post a Comment