Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, is the most impressive collective intellectual project ever attempted -- and perhaps achieved. It demands both the attention and the contribution of anyone concerned with the future of knowledge.
Because of the speed with which it has become a fixture in cyberspace, Wikipedia 's true significance has gone largely unremarked. Since its sixth anniversary this year, Wikipedia has consistently ranked in the top 10 most frequently viewed Web sites worldwide. Everyday it is consulted by 7 percent of all 1.2 billion Internet users, and its rate of usage is growing faster than that of Internet usage as a whole.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia to which anyone with a modicum of time, articulateness, and computer skills can contribute. Anyone can change any entry or add a new entry, and the results will immediately appear for all to see -- and potentially contest.
"Wiki" is a Hawaiian root that was officially added to English last year to signify something done quickly -- in this case, changes in the collective body of knowledge.
Some 4.7 million "Wikipedians" have now contributed to 5.3 million entries, one-third of which are in English, with the rest in more than 250 other languages. Moreover, there is a relatively large group of hardcore contributors -- roughly 75,000 Wikipedians have made at least five contributions in any given 30-day period.
The quality of articles is uneven, as might be expected of a self-organizing process, but it is not uniformly bad. True, topics favored by sex-starved male geeks have been elaborated in disturbingly exquisite detail, while less alluring matters often lie fallow. Nevertheless, according to University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein, Wikipedia is now cited four times more often than the Encyclopedia Britannica in US judicial decisions.
Moreover, Nature's 2005 evaluation of the two encyclopedias in terms of comparably developed scientific articles found that Wikipedia averaged four errors to the Britannica's three. That difference probably has been narrowed since then.
Wikipedia's boosters trumpet it as heralding the arrival of "Web 2.0." Whereas "Web 1.0" facilitated the storage and transmission of vast amounts of different kinds of information in cyberspace, "Web 2.0" supposedly renders the whole process interactive, removing the final frontier separating the transmitter and receiver of informa-tion. But we have been here before -- in fact, for most of human history.
The sharp divide between producers and consumers of knowledge began only about 300 years ago, when book printers secured royal protection for their trade in the face of piracy in a rapidly expanding literary market. The legacy of their success, copyright law, continues to impede attempts to render cyberspace a free marketplace of ideas. Before, there were fewer readers and writers, but they were the same people, and had relatively direct access to each other's work.
Indeed, a much smaller, slower and more fragmented version of the Wikipedia community came into existence with the rise of universities in 12th and 13th century Europe.
The large ornamental codices of the early Middle Ages gave way to portable "handbooks" designed for the lighter touch of a quill pen. However, the pages of these books continued to be made of animal hide, which could easily be written over. This often made it difficult to attribute authorship, because a text might consist of a copied lecture in which the copyist's comments were inserted and then perhaps altered as the book passed to other hands.
Wikipedia has remedied many of those technical problems. Any change to an entry automatically generates a historical trace, so entries can be read as what medieval scholars call a "palimpsest," a text that has been successively overwritten. Moreover, "talk pages" provide ample opportunity to discuss actual and possible changes. While Wikipedians do not need to pass around copies of their text -- everyone owns a virtual copy -- Wikipedia 's content policy remains deeply medieval in spirit.
That policy consists of three rules: One, no original research; two, a neutral point of view; and three, verifiability. These rules are designed for people with reference material at their disposal but no authority to evaluate it.
Such was the epistemic position of the Middle Ages, which presumed all humans to be mutually equal but subordinate to an inscrutable God. The most one could hope for, then, was a perfectly balanced dialectic.
In the Middle Ages, this attitude spawned scholastic disputation. In cyberspace, the same practice, often dismissed as "trolling," remains the backbone of Wikipedia's quality control.
Wikipedia embodies a democratic medievalism that does not respect claims to personal expertise in the absence of verifiable sources.
To fully realize this ideal, participation in Wikipedia might be made compulsory for advanced undergraduates and master's degree candidates worldwide. The expected norms of conduct of these students correspond exactly to Wikipedia's content policy -- one is not expected to do original research, but to know where the research material is and how to argue about it.
Compulsory student participation would not only improve Wikipedia 's already impressive collective knowledge base, but also might help curb the elitist pretensions of researchers in the global knowledge system.
Steve Fuller is a professor of sociology at the University of Warwick in Britain.
Copyright: Project Syndicate/Institute for Human Sciences
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
On the eve of the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe (VE) Day, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) made a statement that provoked unprecedented repudiations among the European diplomats in Taipei. Chu said during a KMT Central Standing Committee meeting that what President William Lai (賴清德) has been doing to the opposition is equivalent to what Adolf Hitler did in Nazi Germany, referencing ongoing investigations into the KMT’s alleged forgery of signatures used in recall petitions against Democratic Progressive Party legislators. In response, the German Institute Taipei posted a statement to express its “deep disappointment and concern”
RSS