Wikipedia is crap
Attention netizens, you’re morons.
As ever, no beating about the bush in the headline, but it’s my site I’ll word it the way I choose thankyouverymuch.
So what exactly has Wikipedia done to earn my scorn? After all, it’s a noble enough idea – the encylopedia written by the people for the people about the people etc etc.
My issue with this particular net venture is that it is potentially and occasionally horribly inaccurate. While there is truth throughout (presumably, I’ve not read the entire thing), much of it is based on hearsay, speculation, opinion and mischief. What one person considers true, another will disagree with – the difference of opinion will dictate who agrees with whom.
Certainly anyone can edit and revise passages of the “wiki” (I fucking hate the name, FYI) but who is to say they are qualified? What’s to stop me posting thinly veiled criticism of a subject I dislike, while in even measure rewriting some history to place me firmly in line for the throne?
Yes, yes, someone could then go back and re-edit my edits to debunk my own opinions, however surely that is the point. Certain right wing groups have been well publicised for their denials of the Holocaust having happened, so they would surely rewrite that passage from their own perspective, creating a game of truth tennis between themselves and those who believe otherwise.
I’m sure there are Wikipolice of some nature but do they know everything? Is God the Wiki-admin?
That is the obvious concern, along with the increasing numbers of internet peons who will happily lap up WikiTruth as The Truth™ and before you know it world history is rewritten by net-savvy, predominantly English-speaking fanboys. I hate fanboys. All gamers, in fact, can piss off, but I’ll save that for later.
My primary concern is a more insidious one; the use of language to re-emphasise a point.
Six months ago this one may have slipped under my radar until I caught the BBC at it. Previously I’d put some stock in BBC news reliability but now I question it more thoroughly when I can be arsed.
The incident in question is an interview with Condi Rice about some US war or other that’s going on. Ironically, the specifics really aren’t necessary in this example. I heard the interview on the radio and it sounded fine, some typical political spin. This line particularly (I am misquoting and paraphrasing – again, accuracy is not paramount in this example) :
we have considered not doing this thing
This was then written up on the BBC website as follows :
we “have considered” not doing this thing
I heard the same text the BBC folks did and there was no extra emphasis or inflection on the “have considered” element. This change in emphasis places subjective intonation on the quote and, if you’re not aware of it, colours your view of what you’re reading.
With the opinionated and largely unsubstantiated views put forward on Wikipedia it is littered with this kind of subtle subjectivity, affecting the readers’ take on whatever subject they’re reading about. The upshot being that as time goes on this people’s encyclopedia will gradually be populated by the same group of people pushing their individual agendas subtley creating a wholly biased resource, albeit in a variety of random directions.
Right now the people who are filling this site are the ones who either want some attention, have an axe to grind or are self-important with regards to their “knowledge”.
At least I keep my bias undisguised.
In this case I simply don’t like the idea of inaccuracy being treated as fact by the upcoming internet fools. Or me for that matter.
Related posts:
