Cory Doctorow seems to be embracing all that is innovative, messy, and daring about the internet.
There is no way that Wikipedia could be a sign of a centralization, Doctorow explicitly states in his first sentence: rather, there is a decentralization that’s in the making.
Oh, how true.
Sure, we don’t know what’s to happen with the future of the meta webs, Google expansion, or the ever-popular cult we know as Wikipedia. But, Lanier points out that it is incredibly tempting for powerful people like those who work in the government to sink their teeth into similar endeavors.
While Lanier is skeptical of Wikipedia and its undertones of big bad business, I admire that Doctorow does not want to heed to Lanier’s extreme presumptions.
Within the inner depth of Wikipedia entries, Doctorow says, is the real bulk, individuality, and fiery commentary that Lanier think is lacking for success. I’d have to overwhelmingly agree with Doctorow. If we look closely at a Wikipedia article, sure, we may see a series of topic heading that have all but a few sentences of explanation. However, once we click on the subheader’s hyperlink, we get a whole new entry about, oh, let’s say Bananas and their History in Florida or something.
Hyperlink after hyperlink within Wikipedia entries take you further into an engrossing conversation about said entry. In fact, there may be so many directions a Wikipedia entry may lead you that it becomes a never ending way for Wikipedians to find a variety of ways to give thoughtful input.
Furthermore, Doctorow does remind us that Wikipedia has a valuable tool that prevents any sort of inclination or possibility for any person to (as Lanier says) “enshrine the official or normative beliefs of an organization”: the Discuss and History bars that appear above any Wikipedia article. More importantly, these Discuss and History options appear most often in current events or longtime conflicts, meaning that people are voicing their opinions on topics and are not merely adhering to the organization’s beliefs (otherwise, such a function would not have existed in the first place).
Wikipedia does, indeed, expand one’s mind. Once you’re in their world, you’re exposed to different opinions (that are shared through different subheadings of entries) and a series of links that will lead you to more information than ever before, which I feel would cause you to be more engaged in the text which you are reading, choosing what you’d like to learn more about, avoiding topics that are banal.
Certainly, we should read Wikipedia with a grain of salt (that’s the expression, right?) and be wary of user-generated content. We can’t read it like Britannica, as Doctorow says — that is bad. We have to actively read Wikipedia, figure out where we want to end up with an entry, decide how best to absorb the text, and edit and add to each entry in hopes of expressing the results of our own knowledge and experience. This active engagement should, in the least, exemplify how we won’t be suppressed by any ulterior big company/government motive.
Yes, Wikipedia can be a mess. But because of its failure with messiness, it is so much more interesting to get through this process to find what you need, rather than just get fed info from old white men.
We’ve been taught how to read and search for things on Wikipedia with a purpose. If anything, Wikipedia engagement can be similar to protest music or revolutionary magazines…or…something.
In any case, I’ve tagged a link about a study of editing habits around Wikipedia articles that are either controversial, highly vandalised, or frequently changed. May be interesting for you guys.
