This issue with Darmouth brings into the present a something I've thought
about concerning Wikipedia for some time.
On the one side, there is a real concern for the quality of content, which
is clearly under attack from many quarters. Wackos who believe that it is
electrical radiation that imposes the speed of light as the ultimate limit
of acceleration, who insist that the Wikipedian philosphy of accepting all
POVs means that we have to include their own "unique" POV; people who are
obsessed at defending their national pride by insisting that a fellow
citizen actually invented the toaster; the trolls who enjoy stirring the
pot by seing just how plausible they can make an unreasonable argument
sound; & countless individuals who believe that the act of reverting any
edit trumps any argument, no matter how well argued.
Bah! If I don't recognize the contributor -- or even more clearly, if that
person is editting from an IP number -- I'll just consider her/him/it a
troublemaker, list the articles that person produces on VfD & revert all of
her/his/its edits as "vandalism".
On the other side, there is the low barrier of entry to Wikipedia that
Academia lacks -- allowing the well-read amateur to add vital new information
that might not make it into other fora because it does not have (1) the
right credentials attached; (2) observe the right prevalent orthodoxy; or
(3) simply needs a little more coaching -- which an isolated amateur or
"info-nerd" won't find any other way. There is something admittedly daunting
about Academia & profesional research that intimidates beginners -- who
too often discover that the professionals realy aren't that professional
in terms of resources, behavior, or analysis.
However Wikipedia, by its "less than perfect, but better than it was
before" approach helps to demolish this elitist misconception.
One of the vital dynamics to Wikipedia is fact that to make any edit stick,
one has to be willing to engage in a conversation about it. One has to not
only convince an audience that a given POV is plausible, but that the
person advocating it is credible & reasonable. Unfortunately, not all who
come to add to Wikipedia are willing to engage in a conversation about their
contributions (nationalists being a prime example of this reluctance, but
everyone is guilty of this reluctance at one time or another), but hopefully
those of us who understand the importance of this dynamic will continue to
advocate it, & keep Wikipedia vibrant despite all of the pressures against
it.
And if I may allowed to be chauvanistic for a moment, I think this ideal
is a valuable part of Western Civilization that needs to be taught to the
rest of the world. We should respect other people's POV, we should be
willing to explain our own POV, & that there should be a fair & beneficial
exchange between them.
</soapbox>
Geoff
