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 61 - 70 of 76

Page 7 of 8

Anonymous

Wikipedia is certainly not ‘citable’ in any respectable academic paper, but I think the site’s value is exactly what so many people hate about it: it’s the boiled-down, homogenized, version. It’s a starting point for more focused research. I live in a rural area where the library primarily houses books for children. If you want academic journals or specific texts, you cannot browse the ‘stacks’. You’ll need to order the book from the larger library extension, which, in my personal experience, frequently takes 4-6 weeks at a MINIMUM. This is perfectly acceptable if you’re ordering Dworkin for a paper, but if dinner guests are arguing about how Houdini really died (or what that animal in the trash is), we want to know NOW and no one wants to read an entire book to figure it out. So, to Wikipedia we go, and then on to more ‘reliable’ citations from there.

Anonymous

Wikipedia is certainly not ‘citable’ in any respectable academic paper, but I think the site’s value is exactly what so many people hate about it: it’s the boiled-down, homogenized, version. It’s a starting point for more focused research. I live in a rural area where the library primarily houses books for children. If you want academic journals or specific texts, you cannot browse the ‘stacks’. You’ll need to order the book from the larger library extension, which, in my personal experience, frequently takes 4-6 weeks at a MINIMUM. This is perfectly acceptable if you’re ordering Dworkin for a paper, but if dinner guests are arguing about how Houdini really died (or what that animal in the trash is), we want to know NOW and no one wants to read an entire book to figure it out. So, to Wikipedia we go, and then on to more ‘reliable’ citations from there.

Anonymous

I think we all must be aware of the limitations of the World Wide Web. A particular concern of mine is what to my mind is an over-reliance of grassroots groups on cyber communication. What a blessing the internet is for people who live far away from good libraries! How silly for people in grassroots organizations who can easily meet in person to decide issues with less risk of surveillance and a lot more body language! A corollary is an over-concern about privacy. Pre-internet there were phone trees that allowed cross-channels of communication. Now indoctrinated with commercial privacy pledges, organizers advocate for a hierarchical, centralized release of personal information, oblivious to the power of Google over their google groups. My simple maxim: don't be a virtual group if you can be a real one.

Anonymous

I think we all must be aware of the limitations of the World Wide Web. A particular concern of mine is what to my mind is an over-reliance of grassroots groups on cyber communication. What a blessing the internet is for people who live far away from good libraries! How silly for people in grassroots organizations who can easily meet in person to decide issues with less risk of surveillance and a lot more body language! A corollary is an over-concern about privacy. Pre-internet there were phone trees that allowed cross-channels of communication. Now indoctrinated with commercial privacy pledges, organizers advocate for a hierarchical, centralized release of personal information, oblivious to the power of Google over their google groups. My simple maxim: don't be a virtual group if you can be a real one.

Sebastian Ortiz

What you say is reasonable and I salute the invitation to awareness, it's very responsible... It's important to say as well, that what you explained is also true for books and any kind of information. So it is not directly a matter of internet, or library, or news on TV; but a matter of good and efficient habits in research. Repeating what you just read in wikipedia or google would be as old an habit as repeating or believing what the sunday church speech said, or what the evening news informed. Any kind of input is an awesome kick start for curiosity and that is exactly what 'we' should incentive in other young people, the blessing of curiosity together with critical researching and common sense. It was just a thought, I suppose I'm missing other ideas inherent to the subject, but then again they were not the subject itself. best regards, Sebastian

Sebastian Ortiz

What you say is reasonable and I salute the invitation to awareness, it's very responsible... It's important to say as well, that what you explained is also true for books and any kind of information. So it is not directly a matter of internet, or library, or news on TV; but a matter of good and efficient habits in research. Repeating what you just read in wikipedia or google would be as old an habit as repeating or believing what the sunday church speech said, or what the evening news informed. Any kind of input is an awesome kick start for curiosity and that is exactly what 'we' should incentive in other young people, the blessing of curiosity together with critical researching and common sense. It was just a thought, I suppose I'm missing other ideas inherent to the subject, but then again they were not the subject itself. best regards, Sebastian

Pages

Add a new comment

Comments are closed.