Caveat Scientae

In my previous blog entry I made reference to John Seigenthaler SR's op/ed piece in USA Today. I have since re-read the article and have some thoughts.

John Seigenthaler states in his USA today op/ed piece;

"Naturally, I want to unmask my "biographer." And, I am interested in letting many people know that Wikipedia is a flawed and irresponsible research tool." **1

I understand that the kind of character assassination that Mr. Seigenthaler experienced from the WikiPedia Bio entry about him must have been very hurtful indeed. I agree with him that the biographer should be unmasked in some sense. Probably not in the same sense he would like but, I think (s)he should not have complete anonymity; more on that later. The statement that I really want to comment on, at least right off the bat is;

"...Wikipedia is a flawed and irresponsible research tool."

I have at least two problems with this assessment. The first is with his characterization of Wikipedia's flawed nature. I'm not about to defend any libelous material that may be, and probably is, still present on Wikipedia. I will however say that his assessment of it as being flawed, at least in my mind, betrays the fact that he believes that it should not be flawed. That is a misunderstanding of the highest order. All reference materials are flawed**2. Some are less flawed than others. To approach something as massive as Wikipedia and expect it to be flawless is a bit expecting the faucet to dispense whatever liquid you happen to be in the mood for at that moment. Wikipedia is a really cool resource, but it is not Stanley's GREAT BIG BOOK OF EVERYTHING, and it certainly does not have Don't Panic on the cover.

As a legal mind and a trained journalist I would hope that Seigenthaler could recognize Wikipedia and wikis in general for what they are. What exactly they are I don't know that I can say, but I can say definitely that they are not scholarly journals, no matter how much some people want them to be, they are not commercial encyclopedia's, and its silly to think they should try to be, (Some people are actually pushing for printing Wikipedia, which I think is the most assinine thing I've ever heard anyone propose about the use of its content) I would say that Encyclopedia Britannica in its 7 million year history has likely had a few hundred entries they wish they would have never written. And those were ostensibly subjected to stringent peer review and lots of high minded conversation and discussion, by experts in their respective fields. Wikipedia does not have a 7 million year history and doesn't always have a reviewer for each page.

If I may create a picture; I see traditional print encyclopedias as those cool looking stone lions outside of our nation's oldest public libraries. They are stately, regal, majestic, and representative of traditional learning and knowledge. They are safe lions. However they are stone so they don't change, at least not until someone paints gang graffiti on them or does one too many board grinds off the tail or nose of the beast. Even then they are basically the same, just defaced, or de"tailed" as the case may be. Wikipedia is nothing like this. Wikipedia is more like a griffin. Not a painting or statue of a griffin but an actual griffin. It is not a safe lion. While a griffin is cool and potentially useful, should you be able to harness/train it, it is still a griffin and anyone in their right mind is going to be scared out of their wits by it. This beast is alive, it has a cellular structure with stuff dying and being born. It is, like all living things, changing, fluxing.

Having said all that allow me to level some blame at Wikipedia for this perception that it should not be flawed. What have they done that I think is a bad idea? They have called themselves an encylopedia.

"Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" **3

By calling itself and encyclopedia Wikipedia has conjured up the baggage that that word carries. Some of which it is trying to free itself from, like undue commercial influence. It is however borrowing the legitimacy that the word carries with it too. I 'm how many of us copied the encyclopedia on any given subject in grade school as an authority for a history or science report. If you didn't know that answer to something and you were, like me, a particularly inquisitive kid, any given teacher or other adult, who probably just didn't want to be bothered, would say why do you go look that up. What did they mean? By in large I would say that meant go consult the WorldBook, or Encyclopedia Britannica, or if your school was slightly less wealthy, as mine was, Funk and Wagnalls, which I understand could be purchased bit by bit at a discount if you saved special coupons that the grocery store gave out.

All that to say, I would propose that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. It is in many ways like an encylopedia, just as the stone library lion is in many ways like a griffin. It is not, however, a griffin. Wikipedia is a wikipedia. Even the name speaks to its chimera nature. It is a new beast and in my view shouldn't be called an encylopedia. Call it a knowledge repository, or call it encyclopedia-like, or just call it what it is an information wiki.

(e.g. Wikipedia, the free knowledge repository that anyone can edit)
(e.g. Wikipedia, the free encylopedia-like entity that anyone can edit)
(e.g. Wikipedia, the information wiki that anyone can edit)

For the mis-marketing I blame the Wikipedia Foundation.

As for Mr. Seigenthaler's clame that Wikipedia is a research tool I cannot argue with that. There are thousands of articles that I, and many others have found useful in writing blog entries. It is really good for reminding you of stuff you should already know and for giving you a gloss of stuff you need to learn more about. Beyond that...

Is Wikipedia an irresponsible research tool? is the real question. Again, Mr. Seigenthaler is assuming that Wikipedia should be a responsible reasearch tool. (Whatever that is..) I suppose since it should be the Wikipedia Foundation calls it an encyclopedia. I can see that. So Wiki Foundation, if you are an encyclopedia you may very well be an irresponsible one. Will that keep me from using Wikipedia? Not likely. Why? Because I don't think Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Because of that I don't think Wikipedia has the same responsibilty as an encyclopedia. The responsibility for the content is shared between the reader and the oligarchs of Wikipedia. Caveat Emptor.

A word on anonymous postings.

While I do believe anonymous speech should be protected. I don't think it should be take seriously. GK Chesterton had some great things to say about publishing and anonymity, but this entry is already way too long, so I'll save that for next time.



-footnotes-
**1 http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm

**2 I am of course referring to any reference book other than say the Bible or anything written by John Stott, CS Lewis, and GK Chesterton, not that the Bible is on par with those, I just like them too much and refuse to believe they are in error. (And Amanda Moore if you read this I am just kidding!)

**3 http://www.wikipedia.org