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 31 - 40 of 76

Page 4 of 8

Anonymous

"As someone who actually uses a large research library everyday of my life for weeks and months on end..." you seem to be only semi-literate. I don't recall anyone "glooming" information from sources, except this one guy who was "wrong...or just stupid."

Anonymous

"As someone who actually uses a large research library everyday of my life for weeks and months on end..." you seem to be only semi-literate. I don't recall anyone "glooming" information from sources, except this one guy who was "wrong...or just stupid."

LGof03

Good point, but this is an issue with larger media culture, not just wikiedia and google. The way we teach in school is NOT critical, its just assimilate and regurgitate, producing what Michel Foucault may call docile bodies who accept whatever their culture tells them to believe. Additionally, our medias "two sides to every issue" mentality makes it impossible for people to learn how to synthesize arguments. People can't use "factual foundations" to adjudicate between arguments because they don't know what is "facts" any more, but i do not think this is just because the "facts" are being controlled; people just need to have the hunger and desire to learn more. Through reading and practice you begin to learn the difference between a "fact" and an editorial statement masquerading as fact. The main thing that is needed people utilizing a multiplicity of sources, this creates the ability for people to aggregate what they hear multiple sources agree upon as "fact" and discern the rest as interpretation. They can then see whose interpretation they find most persuasive. As problematic as google is, it is still a potential portal these different source of knowledge if people only knew how to use it. I teach internet research to kids and the hardest thing to get them to learn is how to type a complex search queery where they can actually search for the kinds of articles they need versus they junk that's out there. They also have a hard time discerning credable sources from uncreadbale ones, but just becuase this is difficult does NOT mean it is impossiable. It seems to me the solution is not to attack google as homogenizing, but to teach people to use google in more complex ways. Google is JUST a search engine, it only spit out what u put into it, so learning how to makes proper demands of google and learning how to read what find seems to makes all the diffrence.

LGof03

Good point, but this is an issue with larger media culture, not just wikiedia and google. The way we teach in school is NOT critical, its just assimilate and regurgitate, producing what Michel Foucault may call docile bodies who accept whatever their culture tells them to believe. Additionally, our medias "two sides to every issue" mentality makes it impossible for people to learn how to synthesize arguments. People can't use "factual foundations" to adjudicate between arguments because they don't know what is "facts" any more, but i do not think this is just because the "facts" are being controlled; people just need to have the hunger and desire to learn more. Through reading and practice you begin to learn the difference between a "fact" and an editorial statement masquerading as fact. The main thing that is needed people utilizing a multiplicity of sources, this creates the ability for people to aggregate what they hear multiple sources agree upon as "fact" and discern the rest as interpretation. They can then see whose interpretation they find most persuasive. As problematic as google is, it is still a potential portal these different source of knowledge if people only knew how to use it. I teach internet research to kids and the hardest thing to get them to learn is how to type a complex search queery where they can actually search for the kinds of articles they need versus they junk that's out there. They also have a hard time discerning credable sources from uncreadbale ones, but just becuase this is difficult does NOT mean it is impossiable. It seems to me the solution is not to attack google as homogenizing, but to teach people to use google in more complex ways. Google is JUST a search engine, it only spit out what u put into it, so learning how to makes proper demands of google and learning how to read what find seems to makes all the diffrence.

Yesenia

Wikipedia is good for starting any research. If you notice at the bottom of Wikipedia pages, it states the sources they used to write the article. Click on those, they are usually reliable sources. I always search stuff on Wikipedia to scroll down to the sources and click on those.

Yesenia

Wikipedia is good for starting any research. If you notice at the bottom of Wikipedia pages, it states the sources they used to write the article. Click on those, they are usually reliable sources. I always search stuff on Wikipedia to scroll down to the sources and click on those.

Colin Bembridge

I agree with your basic concept, and in my personal experience, it would take a very diligent person to combat the fact that certain pages are constantly edited by politically motivated persons even when corrected by more even minded types. That said, I think that the same rule that applies to any media should be equally applied to Wikipaedia, be aware of what you are being exposed to. I find the site invaluable for many purposes, from simply finding out "who that actor was" to deep technical topics such as particle physics. 99.9% of the articles are fact based, with references and external links. The 0.01% of the entries that are likely to be politically or ideologically motivated are reasonably obvious. No single group could possibly bring down the site, but a truly effective and incredibly positive way of dealing with any concerns about the site would be to educate ourselves and particularily our children on how to interpret what they see, read and hear in all forms of media. I know that sounds like a tired old formula, but it is how most social engineering has been accomplished since probably the 60's. To paraphrase Orwell in "1984", control what the children learn and you control the future. what the Parents think makes no difference, they will pass away, and their children will pass on your ideology. Most of us think in too short a timeframe, the truly committed ideologs think in terms of generations.

Colin Bembridge

I agree with your basic concept, and in my personal experience, it would take a very diligent person to combat the fact that certain pages are constantly edited by politically motivated persons even when corrected by more even minded types. That said, I think that the same rule that applies to any media should be equally applied to Wikipaedia, be aware of what you are being exposed to. I find the site invaluable for many purposes, from simply finding out "who that actor was" to deep technical topics such as particle physics. 99.9% of the articles are fact based, with references and external links. The 0.01% of the entries that are likely to be politically or ideologically motivated are reasonably obvious. No single group could possibly bring down the site, but a truly effective and incredibly positive way of dealing with any concerns about the site would be to educate ourselves and particularily our children on how to interpret what they see, read and hear in all forms of media. I know that sounds like a tired old formula, but it is how most social engineering has been accomplished since probably the 60's. To paraphrase Orwell in "1984", control what the children learn and you control the future. what the Parents think makes no difference, they will pass away, and their children will pass on your ideology. Most of us think in too short a timeframe, the truly committed ideologs think in terms of generations.

Pages

Add a new comment

Comments are closed.