The Atlantic's piece is particularly good on the origins and history of Wikipedia. Indeed, I had vaguely contemplated writing a book about Wikipedia and related open content projects to go alongside Rebel Code and Digital Code of Life, but there doesn't seem much point now with all this material available online.
And I liked this meditation on how Wikipedia functions:
Wikipedia suggests a different theory of truth. Just think about the way we learn what words mean. Generally speaking, we do so by listening to other people (our parents, first). Since we want to communicate with them (after all, they feed us), we use the words in the same way they do. Wikipedia says judgments of truth and falsehood work the same way. The community decides that two plus two equals four the same way it decides what an apple is: by consensus. Yes, that means that if the community changes its mind and decides that two plus two equals five, then two plus two does equal five. The community isn’t likely to do such an absurd or useless thing, but it has the ability.
It also quotes the following striking idea:
[I]n June 2001, only six months after Wikipedia was founded, a Polish Wikipedian named Krzysztof Jasiutowicz made an arresting and remarkably forward-looking observation. The Internet, he mused, was nothing but a "global Wikipedia without the end-user editing facility."
Now there's a thought.
Quite uncharacteristically, I'll refrain from a full critique of this piece (and of Jasiutowicz's thought, which I think is right up there with "Information wants to be free") in the interests of diplomacy. Interesting, though, how reluctant it is to identify some of the more articulate and diligent critics of our beloved encyclopaedia - I'd have thought that might have been a usefully objective part of the story, although I am notoriously bad at making these sorts of judgements...
ReplyDeleteMore interesting by far, though, is The Atlantic's oddly bipolar attitude towards access. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the only story on the front page that can be freely accessed by non-subscribers is the Wikipedia story. And it seems that only subscribers can contribute to discussions, too. But I'm sure it's just a matter of time before they adopt the Wikipedia model.
Hm, "articulate" and "diligent": how about "logorrheic" and "fixated"? And shouldn't the site be called Wikitruthiness.info?
ReplyDeleteAs for bipolarism, I suppose you've got to start somewhere, but I can't quite make up my mind. Nonetheless, I'm confident that our other Opus Dei brotherhood will soon wreak their wonderful wikiness all over the title, and you will be able to write freely about Salmo salar in The Atlantic.
Logorrhoea's a bad thing? Someone should inform all those bloggers being encouraged to "post, post, post!", I suppose...
ReplyDeleteAs for being fixated: well, I hardly need point out that fixatedness is not exactly a unique feature of Wikitruth. Indeed, some might even say - scandalous, I know - that some of the Web 2.0/open source fanclub aren't entirely without their obsessive, immovable tendencies either. But there I go casting needlessly incendiary aspersions again. We really must get that implant looked at some time.
And as for poor old Salmo salar, I fear that this might indeed be the only kind of Atlantic it swims in from now on. Perhaps I should spend less time bickering about things that don't matter and more time terrorising salmon farmers...
Who said logorrhea's a bad thing? I'll have you know I'm nearly up to my 666th blog post....
ReplyDeleteAnd I resent your insinuation that I'm some kind of sad Web 2.0/open source fanboy: I'll have you know that I am a pureblood open source fanboy, patiently waiting for Web 3.0 - which will, of course, be entirely wiki-based.