All Roads Lead to Wikipedia

7/27/2019 All Roads Lead to Wikipedia

1/3

All Roads Lead to Wikipedia1

Ivy Roberts

Have you seen that episode of30 Rockwhere Jenna bases her big screen portrayal of JanisJoplin on what she reads on Wikipedia? Shes power walking around the office, intent to lunch

on felines, when Frank confesses. He edited the Joplin page as a prank. Is it funny becauseJenna is so gullible? Or is it more accurate to say that Franks subtle blend of fact and fiction is

a given for modern Internet users?

Trusting in the fundamental nature of information is a personal trait that signifies a belief in thevalidity of a factual, knowable universe. However, the form that the Internet takes today requires

a mindset more along the lines of doublethink. In Orwells dystopian universe, 2+2=5, butsometimes it also equals 4. Doublethink is in the back of our minds, not yet conscious butfunctioning on a daily basis in a way that distorts our perception not only of information but also

of reality itself. Any institution that requires doublethink should set off red flags.

I like imagining what the world will be like in a few hundred years. Im a big fan of sci-fi film and

speculative fiction. Will it become Idiocracyor1984? If the powers that be have a sense ofhumor, I hope it will be the former. And if Wikipedia is going to play a role in the development of

a whole generation of thinkers, its my inclination to predict that stratified society is making

popular culture dumber. Culture critics already claim that our modern world bears resemblanceto Orwells Oceania, and that book is a great resource for thinking points on fabricatingknowledge. Winstons job is the job of all Wikipedians: taking a piece of memory, a newspaper

article, for example, and embedding your rewrite into the database.

You want to believe the Wikipedia. You want to wrap yourself up in the folds of its all-encompassing knowledge. You want to trust that it is all true. At the same time you have this

nagging urge to edit it. You also want the knowledge to conform to your own understanding.

How can Wikipedia be everything to everyone?

Wikipedia is a digital palimpsest. It constructs meaning and truth, but it also constructs a senseof what is real: wikiality.2 It has become our collective database of all things. Its a consensus

model; if enough people agree that something is true, then it becomes real. I love Jaron Laniersanecdote about his own Wikipedia article; he just cant convince people that he is not afilmmaker.3 I cant help but bring up the embarrassing case of John Seigenthaler, a journalist

who, despite what it said on his Wikipedia page, had not been a suspect in the Kennedy

assassination.4 The motives in a defamation of this sort can easily be blamed on the Michael

Bay mentality its just fun.5 The Seigenthaler incident has been referred to as sneaky

1This article was written as a blog entry for consideration for a research internship with the

Institute of Network Cultures. The article was published on 9/20/10 at

http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/lang/de/2010/09/20/all-roads-lead-to-wikipedia/2Stephen Colbert coined the term on his show: The Colbert Report, Comedy Central, NY, New

York, 31 July 2006.3

Jaron Lanier, "Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism," Edge :Conversations on the Edge of Human Knowledge, 30 May 2006.

4"Wikipedia Biography Controversy," Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, 18 Sept. 2010

.5

Vanessa Juarez, "Explain Yourself," Entertainment Weekly13 July 2007..


2/3

vandalism, as opposed to the otherwise outright harassment that takes place on the site.

Sneaky vandalism is the new form of doublethink. Verisimilitude wins. Just as in the 30 Rockanecdote, if it fits, you will believe it. No matter if the information is true and verifiable. It looks

like it could be true and if its findable it becomes integrated into the worldwide knowledge base.

The digital palimpsest is sneaky compared to its historical cousin. The Medieval palimpsest

shows the marks of history on its face--written, erased, and rewritten. The digital one concealsit. Any Wikipedian can revert an article to a previous state, and that information will be recorded

as well. All thats required is for a user look at the Edits page. Wiki technology makesinformation easy to find and remember. What comes to light in the face of the digital palimpsest

is a truth by consensus, a truth whose objective meaning is invisible--perhaps even irrelevant.

The very nature of truth takes a spin. Its an argument that pits the gullible against the

iconoclasts, a battle between popular consensus and expert opinion. The state of Texas, proud

to be the second largest textbook market in the US, is working on rewrites to history, and thischange will impact the way social studies is taught in American high schools.6 Comparing the

school textbook to Wikipedia in this case ranks the experts along side the Wikipediansthat is,as far as objective truth is concerned. Doesnt this remind you of Big Brother?

Opponents to Wikipedia, for example Robert McHenry, the former editor of the Encyclopedia

Britannica, would like information to be controlled by a panel of experts who peer review

information to verify its credibility and accuracy. The other camp wants information to be free,readily accessible, and collaborative. This argument goes back to the foundation of language.People create consensus in language; its a basic cultural truth. The dictionary is the central

tome in which language is compiled. Consensus is what makes words real. What happens to

culture, in this case, when the deletion of a word like dime store makes room for chillax?Language evolves along with culture. No doubt, mashups like wikiality and absotively will oneday find their way into the dictionary. Does this phenomenon imply that there is also a natural

lifecycle to knowledge?

Misinformation kills. Knowledge needs to be protected like an endangered species. Contrary toexpert opinion, it does not find its best habitat in universities or in Wikipedia but in the threads ofhistory. What we need are conscientious citizens to advocate for Truth. If there is such a thingas objective Truth, you wont be able to find it in textbooks or on the Internet.

What could be more meta than Wikipedias article on itself?7 So, how do you undergo Internetresearch about Wikipedia when search engines repeatedly return you to that same

encyclopedias pages? When 92% of New Yorkers cant name a browser, what percentage willcite Wikipedia with conviction?8

All roads lead to Wikipedia, and even though the online encyclopedia contains articles on itsown reliability, who is to say that information is credible? Denial forces fiction to replace fact. Id

like to be one of those morons who can cite those research studies that showed that vandalismand errors are fixed within minutes--most notably the 2005 articles in Nature and The Guardian.9

6James C. McKinley, Jr, "Texas Conservatives Win Vote on Textbook Standards," The New York

Times 12 Mar. 2010. Web. .7

"Wikipedia." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, 18 Sept. 2010.

8What is a Browser? Youtube .

9Jim Giles, Internet Encyclopedias Go Head to Head, Nature December 2005. Can You Trust


3/3

Funny enough, its remarkably difficult finding information about Wikipedia on the Web. A search

engine performs poorly in this case, because Google ranks Wikipedia pages highly. A search forWikipedia surveys pulls up the Wikipedia page describing a survey. I find it ironic that when

searching for information about the reliability of Wikipedia, I end up using its own entry

Reliability of Wikipedia as the springboard.10

Im not saying we all have to be experts. We just have to be intelligent and informed. Does therehave to be a division between conscientious and educated? I know the statistics. 85% of

Americans survive with only a high school diploma.11 Judging on the benchmarks for publiceducation in this country, high school graduates are ill equipped to deal with the information

explosion, much less engage in critical analysis of information available on the Web.

I like to think that an objective reality exists, but its hard to believe that these days. Popularcultural consensus is much stronger than objective truth, and you have to convince people ofthe latter. Some information is just true, whether its fact or fiction. Popular culture is a belief

system, and to an extent a secular religion, where wars are fought and truth concocted on the

battlefields of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia? The Guardian 23 Oct. 2005.

10Reliability of Wikipedia, Wikipedia .

11Educational Attainment in the United States: 2003 (US Census Bureau, June 2004).

Documents

All Roads Lead to Wikipedia