wikipedia- neutral knowledge provider, or politically colored gazette?

by nike6 | December 10, 2007 at 10:39 am

728 views | 0 Recommendations | 0 comments

recently (a few days ago) the statement "You can ban kids from listening to rock 'n' roll music, but they're going to do it anyway"

was given by wikipedia founder J. Wales.

This is slightly provocative. But what is the truth about wikipedia? Is it really a system anyone can edit?

Is the information really "encyclopedic"?

first step is to look up "encyclopedia" in a dictionary:

ENCYCLOPEDIA - a collection of related information, usually not divided
into articles for each item, but by chapters, and sub-chapters. an
encyclopedia covers a scientifically categorizeable area of knowledge,
such as: encyclopedia of science.

however, the depth of the information is on level of popularity- and
also it is always the same through the whole work. this is for the
reason, that such a work can be browsed as such in one evening, by a non-academic person, and can also figure as starting point to gather more detailed information.

an encyclopedia can not contain research, this also includes results of
research, in the form of academic studies, sometimes called "papers".
the danger is that information gets installed in the style
"everybodyknowsthattheamazonasisthelongestriverofsouthamerica"

into the memory of human people.

Gk enkyklopaidía, a misreading of enkýklios paideía circular (i.e., well-rounded) education.

ENCYCLOPEDIA

A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of
subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged
alphabetically.

one screenshot, taken 12/2007, shows information about north korea, not invariable history facts, but details about the current situation. Are not such topics quite dangerous, and not to be edited by an "anonymus anyone"? have a look yourself, and think, it is not a politically colored gazette, but an encyclopedia, working with so-called NPOV (neutral point of view). However, the problem is, that such a neutral point of view often does not exist. And who wants to take such a point, prefering to remain hidden?

here more articles i wrote previously, i give hyperlinks, not to repeat the words more than necessary:

http://alex2705.multiply.com/journal/item/27/wikipedia_not_a_political_gazette_but_a_provider_of_neutral_encyclopedic_information.

http://alex2705.multiply.com/journal/item/26/wikipedia_founder_traps_himself_into_a_statement

http://alex2705.multiply.com/journal/item/11/the_end_of_wikipedia

http://alex2705.multiply.com/journal/item/8/Wikipedia

http://alex2705.multiply.com/journal/item/7/Wikipedia_and_Yahoo_announce_alliance

http://alex2705.multiply.com/journal/item/6/Digital_Universe_The_Anti-Wikipedia

http://alex2705.multiply.com/journal/item/5/Tricky_truths_behind_Wikipedia

http://alex2705.multiply.com/journal/item/4/Wikipedia_is_anti-government_Downer_says

the idea today is, besides the consideration from Australia, that WIKIPEDIA IS ANTI-GOVERNMENT, is that encyclopedic only covers invariant, historically established information.

it is slanderous, to allow montage of articles about the current political situation, or any such political articles, which you would never find within a printed encyclopedia.

for instance, nuclear technology, and sexual hygiene do not really mix into one printed book. they are two specialized categories, normally also not edited by the same people. but on wikipedia, in theory, this is possible.

i do not mention my own experience there, except the example, when my "case" was "mediated" (a term from afghanistan), by a "pastor", supporting "same sex marriage". he had the crux to produce a page-long elaboration, about technical glitches in my usage of english language, about the circumstances how, where and why it was explained to me, and also producing technical fallacy, such as "talking about previous talk", basically.

i wonder if they will jump onto a train of personal weblog, social site, and once again, violate internet etiquette, and by the way, breaking their own rules.

is not it more the sitatuation, to establish a large amount of policies, apply them to outsiders, such as to prohibit any of their activity, and if covering themselves, apply these policies less strictly? this is how it smells. it is completely normal to start legal processing against a group of individuals, who are a damage to global security, establish a stasi-like secret society, and monopolize, fix, the "truth" to one, their, point of view.

but it is not "allowed" to start any legal action against wikipedia. why not? it is a normal function of society. why should this function not apply towards them? becausethey are based in florida? or because the service is "free"?

what sucks worst is their policy of no advertising, no links to personal sites, even to criminalize people if they use graphics, or add links. only for these reasons alone, i want to express, that i do not like wikipedia. advertising is part of human culture, and if wikipedia is trying to eradicate it, also systematically providing articles with unattractive product images, then they damage society, commerce, and human culture.

personally, i do not use wikipedia at all. there is plenty of information on the internet, and in constrast to wikipedia, it is usually not produced by teenagers, who do not have sufficient life experience, to create a high quality article, such as one, you would find in a printed book, which is produced by paid authors, and sold commercially.

todays sentence is, that the interaction with north korea politics is dangerous, slanderous, and also not required. wikipedia should restrict itself from such "hot" topics, such as technical details about all possible nuclear reactors (people can obtain such information from nuclear companies, for real, they sent me CD- ROM), or any political information, which is dangerous, covering current activity, and also would never be found in a normal, paper encyclopedia. it is OK if people need a jotter-pad to mount essays. but they ahould do this on personal websites, not hiding their identity, but showing off personality. readers want to know who is behind a story. that is why wikipedia , in my view, ultimatively will no have much future.

i appreciate feedback! but not from people actively involved into wikipedia. to them, my message is that i do not visit the project at all. it is ridiculous, how wikipedia is trying to restrict, and to replace the normal internet. nowadays people can pay for websites, or webservices. not everyone is unable to use money (that is what they superimpose on society). if you take a look at photobucket, then you get an idea of "copyright". it is strange what is going on at wikipedia, all this fake licensing. pseudo-law. it is their own reality bubble, which has no application to the real, outside world, including myself.

it is maybe not practicable to restrict, censor, or even to take down wikipedia by authorative command. even if i would like to see it. we must live with this "internet phenomena". but the usage of wikipedia should be discouraged, similar to a student with no money, living from goverment support, should be discouraged to enroll at a university. the chances of such a student to top-off with extraordinary results are compareable lower, than a student with moderate-rich parents, who can support this student. they will usually not need "free" books, or to rely on a service such as wikipedia. people should not given the belief, that they can get off for free, only gathering all their information from wikipedia.

but this is a point, the founder even agrees to himself. in his words, wikipedia is only a starting point of learning, and to gather more information.

what already happened is a spin-off: http://eol.org (encyclopedia of life). they are prepared for a long run (10 years or more). knowlege has too many different requirements, than to be forced into a single community. people do not want to have nuclear details together with north korea details (not verified, no neutral point exists), and also sexual hygiene information (this is up to the government, and commercial organisations).

further spin-off's, and ultimatively the end of wikipedia as we know it, are inevitable.