In Defence of Wikipedia

Posted on | February 22, 2009 | 3 Comments

I liked David Mitchell’s assessment of Wikipedia in his weekly Observer column today:

I think, for instance, that Wikipedia is brilliant. That such a vast resource should have evolved so quickly is amazing, in a way that its inaccuracies and those who vandalise it cannot seriously undermine. I read a very stupid article about it last week, saying that it was worthless or harmful because readers have to be aware that it could contain errors or lies.

This ignores two things. First, Wikipedia’s level of accuracy is remarkable considering its eclectic provenance. And second, readers should always question the veracity of what they read and the motives of whoever wrote it, and in the internet age more than ever. People who allow themselves to be made credulous by stylish typesetting and a serif font are screwed. And if Wikipedia, while being very informative in most cases, teaches a few lessons about questioning sources, then that’s all to the good.

His comments on the recent bit of Tory naughtiness around the vexed question of how old Titian was when he died are also worth reading:

In a small way, that action is genuinely disgraceful. The Conservatives were happy to misinform the world in order to back up their boss’s quip – to damage a charity that gives knowledge free to billions, for trivial political gain.

It’s the act of someone who’d forge a disabled parking badge, a tiny unit of pure, sociopathic evil. Even politicians should be ashamed that they’re harbouring anyone like that.

Technorati Tags: david mitchell, wikipedia, conservative party, titian

Category: art, authority, knowledge, politics

Comments

3 Responses to “In Defence of Wikipedia”

Wikipedia » In Defence of Wikipedia : John Connell: The Blog
February 23rd, 2009 @ 12:34 am

[...] John Connell wrote an interesting post today on In Defence of Wikipedia : John Connell: The BlogHere’s a quick excerptI think, for instance, that Wikipedia is brilliant. That such a vast resource should have evolved so quickly is amazing, in a way that its inaccuracies and those who vandalise it cannot seriously undermine. I read a very stupid article … [...]
Anna
February 25th, 2009 @ 2:52 am

Well said! Those who criticize Wikipedia on account of its potential for error have probably labored all their lives under the illusion that everything they’ve read in textbooks and scientific and academic literature is somehow error-free, carrying the golden seal of Truth. I wonder if that even extends to newspapers and magazines for some. In any case, we need to be aware that there is no such thing as this seal. It’s time everyone woke up to the reality that sources are just sources, and writers–whether academics or scientists or everyday Joes–are just people with sources that may very well be dubious.
Web 2.0 no meu Delicious - Semana 9 « Web 2.0 PT
March 1st, 2009 @ 7:30 pm

[...] In Defence of Wikipedia [...]