Wiki-Wisdom: Jimmy Wales implies Popular Consensus Compliments Credentials

Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia (with Larry Sanger), readily admits that his site has, and probably always will have, errors, inaccuracies or worse, although the same can be said of any encyclopedia (09/01/15 CBC Interview). But, he adds, the advantage of an online reference source is that it can be amended immediately, whereas traditional encyclopedias have to wait to be reprinted. For the same reason, the information on Wikipedia tends to be more current than that contained in bound editions.

Looking up ‘Wikipedia' on Wikipedia we find that critics complain about how the online encyclopedia favors "consensus over credentials in its editorial process." The lowest common denominator, also known as the general public, has never had a particularly good reputation for being very bright. But, of course, the elite in society do much to establish such reputations. Doing so serves their self-interests.

Online Collaboration Works Well

It would certainly not be wise to blindly accept Wiki-wisdom with regards to, for example, what medicine to take or how to heal a troubled relationship. But there are many problems in life for which we will find there are no easy answers. What IS easy, however, is comparing what we find on Wikipedia with other internet sources, which may or may not be more reliable. And there is always the option of standing up and going to our bookshelves for, as some presume to be the case, more credentialed references.

If experts in a particular field believe that the facts posted on the internet are wrong it behooves them to start blogging and posting and telling the world what they know. This is not to say that their concerns about mob rule on the internet or collaborative online encyclopedias are not justified.

On a philosophical level, it is always helpful to thoroughly criticize any new technological offspring in the evolution of collective human knowledge. Books originally met with much cynicism amongst those who distrusted the strange, linear medium so different from the sound of the voice. And, of course, it is important to prevent libel, slander and plagiarism. Thus Wikipedia has recently agreed to require their editors to sign off on postings that are biographical in nature-in response, it seems, to popular figures such as Ted Kennedy, Paul Martin and Miley Cyrus having been subject to false or defamatory statements posted on Wikipedia (see CBC video). Beyond such measures, efforts to control cyberspace can be futile or even counter-productive to the best interests of a free society.

Loving Wikipedia is a Democratic Affair

Since the advent of the written word, books have traditionally been controlled by the elite, the few who could read and write and the even fewer who could afford to pay scribes. Today the acquisition and dissemination of wisdom is a much more democratic affair.

Governments, churches and other powerful institutions still wield a great deal of influence as gate-keepers of culture, as do the vast corporations that control much of the media. Even the great Google cannot offer an unbiased search of the internet.

Editorial bias, and even outright propaganda, can never be avoided entirely. So we always need to be circumspect in our appraisal of the reliability of sources. By sharing what we find on Wikipedia with others we can find out what they think, which may in turn alter or confirm our own opinions. Ultimately, it is up to all of us to decide what the truth is.