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
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
A report by the US-based Jamestown Foundation on Tuesday last week warned that China is operating illegal oil drilling inside Taiwan’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the Taiwan-controlled Pratas Island (Dongsha, 東沙群島), marking a sharp escalation in Beijing’s “gray zone” tactics. The report said that, starting in July, state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corp installed 12 permanent or semi-permanent oil rig structures and dozens of associated ships deep inside Taiwan’s EEZ about 48km from the restricted waters of Pratas Island in the northeast of the South China Sea, islands that are home to a Taiwanese garrison. The rigs not only typify
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS