General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsReminder that Wikipedia is having a fundraiser...
As tight as my budget is, I can afford 5.00 this month.
If we ALL did that.......
Just pop over to the Wiki page, the info is there.
List left
(595 posts)Donated
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)ailsagirl
(22,896 posts)Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)In my opinion, the same anti-intellectualism/anti-elitism that brought us Trump is at work in Wikipedia. Just like Trump and his supporters, Wikipedia, by definition, rejects objective facts and instead says the crowd gets to decide what's true.
Knowledge by consensus
From Larry Sanger, one of the co-creators of Wikipedia, who now feels there's a problem with it.
Is there a new geek anti-intellectualism?
Around the same time, some people began to criticize books as such, as an outmoded medium, and not merely because they are traditionally paper and not digital. The Institute for the Future of the Book has been one locus of this criticism.
But nascent geek anti-intellectualism really began to come into focus around three years ago with the rise of Facebook and Twitter, when Nicholas Carr asked, Is Google making us stupid? in The Atlantic. More than by Carrs essay itself, I was struck by the reaction to it. Altogether too many geeks seemed to be assume that if information glut is sapping our ability to focus, this is largely out of our control and not necessarily a bad thing. But of course it is a bad thing, and it is in our control, as I pointed out. Moreover, focus is absolutely necessary if we are to gain knowledge. We will be ignoramuses indeed, if we merely flow along with the digital current and do not take the time to read extended, difficult texts.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Wikii--by which I mean Wikileaks and Wikipedia--offers a vast array of material along with citations, contrary to social media.
I am one of those people who actually read some of the citations, and often at least check them out.
Therefore I do not agree that Wikipedia "rejects objective facts "
Tis true there are instances of abuse on Wiki, in which articles are put up by political supporters, but these are usually notated by Wiki as biased, a warning that is helpful, and many are removed quickly.
If people follow the posting rules of Wikipedia, including accurate citations, it works well as a quick source of information, but one should not relay on it being the only source.
Comparing Wiki to social media such as Facebook and Twitteris, of course, a false argument, since they have different purposes.
As to Larry Sanger's argument, that knowledge should rest in the hands of experts, I need only point to the Texas textbook issue which shows the folly of taking "experts" as fact.
Sanger assumes that "information glut is sapping our ability to focus," and that "focus is absolutely necessary if we are to gain knowledge"
which would make more sense if he defined "knowledge", ( since he has a doctorate in Philosophy, he should know that defining terms is important to any philosophical argument)
but he seems to feel it is only available if we " take the time to read extended, difficult texts."
One could easily point to all sorts of knowledge available on the internet, with and without "extended, difficult texts."
Before I commented here I looked up Larry Sanger, since he was a cited source in your reply.
I note that he went on to form his idea of a Wiki, calling it Compendium, basically an online encyclopedia written by experts, and that has not exactly worked well.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)In fact, it may be that the frequently atrocious quality of other instances of the ubiquitous "anyone can publish or edit" info sources online (yahoo answers, imdb, etc.) is magnifying my negative feelings about Wikipedia, which at least has more and better procedures for at least trying to ensure the accuracy and writing standards of the material it publishes.
I think Sanger's definition of knowledge is clear enough by the context of his argument. Especially if you read more of his writing on the subject. For instance http://www.larrysanger.org/hownetchangesknowledge.html
On the other hand, I'm not clear on what you mean by "has not exactly worked well," in reference to Compendium (with which I'm unfamiliar), nor what that's meant to suggest regarding my misgivings about Wikipedia.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)in that Sanger created it to be a Wiki with only "experts" providing information, but the site had very few articles, as it turned out.
BigBadDem
(29 posts)Are you pro eliteism
Everyone can input on Wikileaks and help steer its content. That is way better than our MSM which does no such thing.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Isn't Democratic Underground also "anti-elitist"??????
And yet...here you are.
Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #7)
Dark n Stormy Knight This message was self-deleted by its author.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)over non-elites in many instances.
Most would choose a trained surgeon to remove their brain tumor, over someone whose closest experience has been carving a turkey. Most would prefer a science teacher who understands that evolution is not just a theory to a bible-as-textbook creationist. Most DUers object to congresspersons who are so ignorant as to believe that "pPregnancy from rape is really rare. If its a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down, serving in Congress at all, much less on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.
Those are all pro-elite positions.
But what makes anyone think the Middle East would be less bloody, or the Islamic State less of a terrorist threat, if U.S. policy had been run by people who had no expertise who knew nothing about the region's history, religious schisms or ethnic divides?
Ignorance is not a virtue. Knowledge is not a vice. Pointy-heads who spend years gaining expertise in a given field may make mistakes, but the remedy is to replace them with pointy-heads who have different views not with know-nothings who would try to navigate treacherous terrain on instinct alone.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)That's fine. The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up thusly: "Experts are scum." For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment.
source
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)What specifically leads you to believe the ideology behind Wiki and Trump's campaign run parallel if not together? Additionally, can you provide particular and relevant example of Wikipedia rejecting objective, peer-reviewed facts in favor of consensus?
Dalai_1
(1,301 posts)I use Wiki daily!Have given in the past and certainly will continue to do so!
Tarc
(10,476 posts)The Wikipedia is the longest-running con on the internet; what better business model is there than to attract a legion of unpaid volunteers to toil in pseudonymity while the WMF (Wikimedia Foundation) rakes in millions to pay themselves for basically watching you edit. As for the edits themselves, we're talking about an "encyclopedia" that has an article on Yoshinori Ohsumi (401 words), winner of 2016 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine vs. Beyonce's Formation Tour (4743 words). The WIkipedia is largely a collection of ephemeral pop culture, not a serious encyclopedia project.
Please visit the Wikipediocracy
http://wikipediocracy.com/
a noted Wikipedia criticism blog and discussion forum to see that things are not as rosy as you think in Wiki-land, and why they are certainly not deserving of your money.