On Nov 16, 2004, at 12:29 PM, Chuck0 wrote:
Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
If it was really the case that Wikipedia moderators allowed to present right-wing opinion about anarchism as a neutral fact and dismissed Chuck0's objections, that would be a clear example of excercise of power, i.e. something anarchists oppose.
Wikipedia promotes the idea that individual entries are the collective wisdom and writing of many smart individuals. Wikipedia claims that, more or less, articles get more accurate with more eyes (and edits). The problem is that contentious topics are not just the target of mischief, but are battlegrounds for partisans with differing opinions. Traditional reference materials addressed this problem with something called "authority," which is related to the concept of "neutral point of view." Wikipedia has no effective mechanism to draw a line in disputes on contentious topics, which is why I find it hard to fully support.
On the contrary, Wikipedia is evolving a number of mechanisms - imperfect and provisional as they are - to deal with such problems. Wikipedia represents the "most bearable consensus". Not the best statement of the state of affairs, but the one which the community at large can live with. It is rooted in documentation, neutral point of view, debate and, ideally, judicious use of sysop powers with levels of appeal and accountability. There is seldom a "final say" on most issues.
The downside is that maintaining a section becomes a continuous effort, but this is true of old houses, works of music and almost anything else: a point of view exists as long as it has people who take the time for it. The downside of their being no "final say", is that there is equally seldom a "once and for all".
There are many points of view which rest on documentably false assertions, or on interpretations of evidence which are not credible. Part of the value of Wikipedia is that there is a constant annealing process, by which points of view are defended, reworked and sympathized with. Anyone working a contentious issue should be able to make a strong case for opposing points of view, and these will strengthen ones own ability and understanding.
In a society that is rapidly polarizing into sources of information which appeal to basic bias, this is a crucial project, and one which is being noted by more and more people. Having a small minority point of view can be difficult in an ocean of consensus, which is why it is often important to be honest: are you documenting? Or doing original work? If the latter, then perhaps it is time to do that work, and document only as far as the already established work allows.
If your objective is to be the source for ideas in an point of view, then Wiki is probably not the right place. But that does not mean you should not "support" wikipedia.