Blackspot

Beware of Wikipedia

Are Wikipedia and Google homogenizing our culture?

"The one who controls the search results controls the searcher" may be an apt motto for our era. The sad truth about the Internet is that what started as a liberating multiplicity of informational sources has dwindled to a handful of knowledge-monopolies with Google and Wikipedia leading the pack. While we cling to the founding myth of the World Wide Web – that an information society would mean a world informed by a diversity of information – the reality is a nightmare. The online world has become a trash heap of distorted information collected by soulless bots to serve advertising. And as declining numbers of Americans turn to libraries for wisdom, the Internet has increasingly become the primary, and sometimes only, source of education for whole communities. But relying on the Internet for all of our information needs is a dangerous development when it functions to homogenize thought.

When I encountered a dog-sized rodent digging in my compost bin one night I asked a friend if he'd ever seen such a creature. He told me that it was called a nutria and explained that it originated in South America, was originally imported as a source of cheap fur and now lived wild in the Pacific Northwest. Fascinated, I went online to learn more. A Google search led me to a Wikipedia page where I read, to my great alarm, the precise words and facts my friend had used to describe the animal. It was apparent that he had done the same Google search, clicked on the same Wikipedia page, and had simply recited to me the information he found there. Of course, I didn't blame my friend for telling me what he knew but I was troubled that we had both "discovered" the same facts written by an anonymous poster.

Wikipedia is a particularly unreliable source of knowledge and yet, because of a rumored secret-deal with Google, it ranks highly on many searches. But if you searched Google for knowledge about Theology and read any of the 16,000 Wikipedia pages edited by Essjay, an anonymous contributor who claimed to hold two PhDs, then you may wish to seek your nearest library... and fast. Because it turns out that Essjay was lying about his credentials: he is actually 24, doesn't hold any advanced degrees, and has no specialized knowledge of the subjects upon which he wrote. But the damage has already been done. Unknown millions are now walking the earth repeating the fabrications of an overzealous geek. And while Essjay's contributions may have been unmasked anonymous users continue to edit the 2,000,000 English pages in Wikipedia that are unreliably informing the curious at the same time as they homogenize thought. Even the U.S. military has joined in the Wikipedia fabrication game, one researcher recently revealed over 80,000 edits by users at military servers.

A couple years ago, the U.S. Government's National Center for Education Statistics conducted a nationwide survey and discovered that 87% of American adults are unable to "compare viewpoints in two editorials" because they lack the necessary reading proficiency. It was alarming news for which no one seemed to offer sufficient explanation. But maybe the answer is staring us in the screen: perhaps adults are losing the ability to compare multiple viewpoints because they are exposed to fewer viewpoints each day than before. To the growing number of people who read only the Internet there seems to be a tremendous agreement on truth: it's whatever Google and Wikipedia say. But if the one who controls the search results controls the searcher then we find ourselves approaching the danger of a tyrannical consensus.

We face a terrible future unless, with courage, we are willing to disagree, to ignore the easy truths and to search the hidden places for knowledge. What we need now are adventurers of truth and seekers of wisdom in the wilderness of thought who share their discoveries offline. When the most exciting truths can only be found with the computer off and in discussion with friends then we will have won the war against homogeneity and will be closer to controlling our future.

Micah White is a Contributing Editor at Adbusters Magazine and an independent activist. www.micahmwhite.com

76 comments on the article “Beware of Wikipedia”

Displaying 11 - 20 of 76

Page 2 of 8

ianmack

You make a point that both you and your friend found the same information on Wikipedia, but you fail to actually say whether the information was accurate. Also, where do people otherwise get their general information from? Encyclopedia Britannica? A viewpoint scientifically sound though no doubt supremely biased. Wikipedia is an amazing resource, when treated as the starting point for knowledge - which is why it is rewarded by high Google search rankings. It is not the "be all, end all" of human knowledge. Don't hate Wikipedia, just lament the people that don't look any further.

ianmack

You make a point that both you and your friend found the same information on Wikipedia, but you fail to actually say whether the information was accurate. Also, where do people otherwise get their general information from? Encyclopedia Britannica? A viewpoint scientifically sound though no doubt supremely biased. Wikipedia is an amazing resource, when treated as the starting point for knowledge - which is why it is rewarded by high Google search rankings. It is not the "be all, end all" of human knowledge. Don't hate Wikipedia, just lament the people that don't look any further.

perceptiventity

Spot on mate. There are plenty of views on the net. One just has to be motivated to look further. And Wiki is a baby compared to print medea - just let us wait another 300 years! People were lazy even before the advent of writing I guess (:

perceptiventity

Spot on mate. There are plenty of views on the net. One just has to be motivated to look further. And Wiki is a baby compared to print medea - just let us wait another 300 years! People were lazy even before the advent of writing I guess (:

Jazz Time

if something seems too easy to act as a valuable and trustworthy resource, it probably is. I've thought this from the beginning, and continue to think it. but then one has to be discerning. if anything, those who seek knowledge will use wikipedia as a jump-start, and all the rest of those suckers who have always been duped by dominant ideology will continue to end their quest at the easiest point of culmination. it's not the end of the world, it's just the beginning of yet another end.

Jazz Time

if something seems too easy to act as a valuable and trustworthy resource, it probably is. I've thought this from the beginning, and continue to think it. but then one has to be discerning. if anything, those who seek knowledge will use wikipedia as a jump-start, and all the rest of those suckers who have always been duped by dominant ideology will continue to end their quest at the easiest point of culmination. it's not the end of the world, it's just the beginning of yet another end.

credit101

the control of information is one of the four forms of power in our globalized world. i believe all things written are biased, we just need be able to make good judgments with the information we have. Also what is important is that we have information on our sources, who fund them and so forth. Without getting too much into epistemological debate, the problem raised here is by no means new, knowledge has always been twisted to suit those in power.

credit101

the control of information is one of the four forms of power in our globalized world. i believe all things written are biased, we just need be able to make good judgments with the information we have. Also what is important is that we have information on our sources, who fund them and so forth. Without getting too much into epistemological debate, the problem raised here is by no means new, knowledge has always been twisted to suit those in power.

Anonymous

Without the desire to search out opposing viewpoints people are condemning themselves to shallow thinking. We are not a generation that has the ability to discern between different ideas primarily because without being told what the opposing viewpoint is we are unable to conceive of it. Pirsig lamented this in his book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maitenance. We no longer are able, willing, or even interested in formulating our own ideas or even in LOOKING at something for what it is. We only wait to be told so we can regurgitate it. Modern education and the internet reinforce this. People have nothing to say because they can't remember anything worth repeating, so they wikipedia it and recite what that tells them. Its the fear of Orwell with NewSpeak. Take away enough different ideas and eventually people wont be able to come up with any on their own.

Anonymous

Without the desire to search out opposing viewpoints people are condemning themselves to shallow thinking. We are not a generation that has the ability to discern between different ideas primarily because without being told what the opposing viewpoint is we are unable to conceive of it. Pirsig lamented this in his book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maitenance. We no longer are able, willing, or even interested in formulating our own ideas or even in LOOKING at something for what it is. We only wait to be told so we can regurgitate it. Modern education and the internet reinforce this. People have nothing to say because they can't remember anything worth repeating, so they wikipedia it and recite what that tells them. Its the fear of Orwell with NewSpeak. Take away enough different ideas and eventually people wont be able to come up with any on their own.

Pages

Add a new comment

Comments are closed.