Two and a half years ago I liked the idea of wikipedia. But the New York Times article on wikipedia today points out the obvious fact that has made me lose faith in its usefulness: the amateur web encyclopedia is jam packed with falsehood. This, unlike much of the content of wikipedia, in fact is a fact. But there are people who fight the obvious, the actual. Read this and consider the meaning of "cyberexpert" as you do:
Some cyberexperts said Wikipedia already had a good system of checks and balances. Lawrence Lessig, a law professor at Stanford and an expert in the laws of cyberspace, said that contrary to popular belief, true defamation was easily pursued through the courts because almost everything on the Internet was traceable and subpoenas were not that hard to obtain. (For real anonymity, he advised, use a pay phone.) "People will be defamed," he said. "But that's the way free speech is. Think about the gossip world. It spreads. There's no way to correct it, period. Wikipedia is not immune from that kind of maliciousness, but it is, relative to other features of life, more easily corrected."Anyone who thinks that the courts are a proper alternative to an editorial policy that checks facts before they are published lacks something of an understanding of day to day human existence and certainly challenges my understanding of what an expert is. Would any of you prefer to be caught in years of a system of justice you likely would not understand and definitely could not afford over a system of publication which includes preventative measures to ensure the wrong does not arise in the first place? Free speech is not defamation any more than a lie is the truth. They are opposites in that true defamation is an exception to speech that is free - an exception which is punishable by law. Statements like that of Lessig undermine deterrence, one of the great benefits of law which stops many a wrong before it is done. Sadly, people might actually take his words to mean that they need not ensure what they write and publish is correct because someone else will pick up after them sooner or later. Guru-ification made manifest.
Many rage about moral relativism but I am far more concerned about the factual relativism which the internet has spawned. Now that thing of mine is not so much mine anymore according to some. Now that thing I never did at all somehow has become something I might have done. Just as with music theft and the way courts have stopped those who run the system, it will likely take a suit against those behind wikipedia, a suit that treats them as the publishers they are in a grown-up, take responsibility for your actions kind of way. That case could be the one that skuttles the idea pushed by a small circle of gurus that the internet is a mystical elsewhere and gets it on track to becoming as useful as its promise would have us believe.
Comments
Alan - December 4, 2005 1:23 pm
Arthur mentions a guru being caught me-kipedia-ing or maybe its re-kipedia-ing.
Arthur - December 4, 2005 3:07 pm
This, unlike much of the content of wikipedia, in fact is a fact.
Exactly: their scientific content (math, physics, chemistry) is actually pretty good, that is, most of the scientific content can be easily verified.
I find it funny, that living people are trying to claim their place in history, re: the podcasting caruffel (I think that's new word).
Alan - December 4, 2005 6:02 pm
One thing that is useless with a wiki is that as anyone can add and edit the content it cannot describe a disagreement well by letting the sides of the disagreement lay down their arguments without being edited by others. Science may have less of that as there is accepted truths but are there areas of debate in science that you can describe?<p>The other thing that makes it useless is when topics attract writers who do not know much about the subject. Beer is terribly described in wikipedia, for example.<p>Plus, the whole idea of constant editing as "correction" rather than just "change" is a bit odd. It assumes that sooner or later those participating are possess an authoritative understanding. I don't know why that would be.
lawgirl - December 5, 2005 6:26 pm
As a lawyer, Alan, you will appreciate this absurd "List of Prominent Jurists" in the USA on Wikepedia. Amongst well-deserved names such Holmes and Brandeis are, ahem, a certain Superior Court of California judge and a boxing referee.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prominent_jurists#United_States
Alan - December 5, 2005 6:54 pm
Can you create your own wikipedia pages like "World's Greatest Blogger" and puff yourself up?
brian - December 6, 2005 9:26 am
Regarding the Seigenthaler issue, what he doesn't realize is that <a>anyone</a> can post <a>anything</a> they want. I could go to an article about the sky and vehemently assert that its color is red. So what? Someone will come along within an hour or less and correct my "vandalism." Seigenthaler himself could have clicked "edit this page" and corrected the information, and then noted in the discussion area that there was no factual basis for what had been posted.
The problem arises when Wikipedia's "troublemakers" outnumber the "good guys." There becomes simply too much vandalism and misinformation to correct in any sort of timely manner.
The greatest thing about a wiki is also its worst thing.
Alan - December 6, 2005 9:45 am
That is true, Brian, but my problem is also that being a good guy does not make you an authority so I have doubt as to the authenticity of everything on the site. I use it as an introduction to any topic and that is about it.<p>The model is also bound to go the way of Usenet as an effective means for mass spamming is figured out.
brian - December 6, 2005 3:15 pm
Yup. I never said anything on the Web was accurate! As with all forms of media (TV/radio/print), everything should be taken with a grain o' salt.
Or should it? I seem to be posting this on the Web right now as my fingers type. Is it true? Maybe you can believe some things. My head could very well explode if I don't cease all thought right... now.