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.