More like this
Knowledge by consensus
Wikipedia's guiding principle is agreement rather than truth, says Oliver Kamm
In conception and characteristics, Wikipedia is distinctively a creature of the internet: vast, sprawling and of dramatically variable quality. It is also, by design, an anti-intellectual project. Wikipedia recognises no intrinsic value in competence or knowledge; its guiding principle is agreement rather than truth. Intellectual inquiry involves testing ideas against the canons of evidence. Wikipedia's 'community' offers members a different route to recognition - one shorn of the burden of earning it.
Scientific method is integral to Western civilisation. The invention of the printing press in the fifteenth century allowed the rapid dissemination of ideas, and knowledge began to spread with particular force some three centuries ago with the Scientific Revolution, whose foundations lay in the work of thinkers of classical Greece. In principle, the advent of the web and the planned accumulation of knowledge in an online reference source ought to be a still more powerful means of spreading enlightenment.
Wikipedia has no means of arbitrating between claims other than popularity
But Wikipedia does not work like that. The project's advocates imagine that the problem, if they recognise one at all, lies in the variable quality of Wikipedia's individual entries. The solution is obvious: a process in which editors work on the less successful entries and remove the obviously unmerited ones.
In reality, the problem is much more fundamental to Wikipedia than that much of its content is a pile of dross. Whereas science and learning pursue truth, Wikipedia prizes consensus. Wikipedia has no means of arbitrating between different claims, other than how many people side with one position rather than another. That ethos is fatal to the advancement of learning. Ideas are refined by being tested; scientific method presupposes scrutiny, experiment and conflict.
Andrew Lih's hagiography of the venture - The Wikipedia Revolution: How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World's Greatest Encyclopedia (Aurum Press, £14.99) - is succinct and consistent. From its vainglorious and bathetic subtitle onwards, it is a remorselessly superficial and unreflective book. Long on wide-eyed enthusiasm for technological detail, it is alarmingly short on learning.
Respect is never an entitlement in a culture of learning, it must be earned
Paradoxically, the most useful part of the book is the unintended candour of Wikipedia's founder, Jimmy Wales, in envisaging that the venture will be founded on "love and respect". Again, the point is not to contrast Wales's hopes with the virulent abuse that characterises much of Wikipedia's deliberations. It is rather that love and respect are irrelevant to the advancement of knowledge. In a culture that prizes discovery and education, respect is never an entitlement. It is earned, and then still contingent, to the extent that ideas prove their resilience against attacks. Wikipedia does not adhere to those standards of intellectual inquiry.
The most disturbing aspect of Lih's encomium is his treatment of the human side of Wikipedia - what he excruciatingly terms the community. His description of Wales as "like a prophet visiting his flock" is a more revealing simile than he realises. His account of the way in which the self-designated Wikipedians meet bears the hallmarks of a cult. And that strictly is what Wikipedia represents. It is not part of a democratic culture so much as a populist one: a combination of the anti-intellectualism of the Left and the free-market dogmatism of the Right.
Lih refers to - he can hardly avoid mentioning - the scandal in which a prominent member of the Wikipedia "community" and of its arbitration committee turned out to be not, as the man had claimed, a tenured professor of religion but a 24-year-old college drop-out called Ryan Jordan. Wales's handling of the episode - he initially stated that Jordan had "been thoughtful and contrite about the entire matter, and I consider it settled" - demonstrated that a false claim to knowledge was an unexceptionable part of Wikipedia's culture.
Lih's defence of Wales is - and the feebleness ought to make both men blush - that Wales was "likely working off imperfect information".
As is characteristic of Wikipedia's devotees, Lih is fond of setting up straw men: of maintaining that Wikipedia, if it did not work, would produce "nothing but a pile of incomprehensible junk". Wikipedia is indeed comprehensible, and some of its articles effectively mimic the language of scholarly reference. The venture is junk, nonetheless. Wikipedia occupies a prominent part of the Web; the rough beast's hour has come round at last. But there is no reason to accept or value it, still less use it for its intended purpose. ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
Mr Kamm has gone against his own principles and stated as fact something that which has not been tested by scientific method. His references to anecdotes has been mistaken for proven fact. I suggest he put his money where his mouth is: hire an independent research lab to set up a series of tests of a statistically significant amount of data in Wikipedia and compare this information with what is predetermined as accepted fact. My hypothesis is that there would not be much difference from mainstream fact and what is presented as such in Wikipedia.
The same research should be performed on encyclopaedia from 1900 onward and determine how many of the facts (which they were, by definition) are no longer rated as such. There is most likely a more accurate depiction of phrenology in Wikipedia than there were inencyclopaedia and other scientific journals of the time. A further and more extensive study of the rate of change in Wikipedia will most likely indicate faster and more agile skills at developing (another theory: evolution. The strong are those that can adapt fastest and most effectively).
Are we could all accept this as an April Fool's joke in which we have all been caught....
What a confused mind; privileged life, thinks he's left wing, supports the invasion of Iraq [what, still? do some people just never learn?] thinks he can take on Chomsky [good luck boy!] flitters between Tory and NewLabour [both Thatcherite parties now] and supported Bush and Blair. A kind of neo con Don Quixote, small wonder he's taking on Wikipedia, it'll be Google next he has a tilt at. It's just ego though - notice me!
And to prziloczek and Joe Herron, I disagree, there's masses of scholarship in Wikipedia, searching on random subjects turns up results that could be mini books they are so exhaustive. And if something is less than satisfactory to your thinking, add to it!
Kamm's argument that there is one single definitive answer on any topic betrays his intellectual bankruptcy. No need to ask who'll be providing these "official truths" in Olly's NWO version of the future. No genuine academic would ever voice such codswallop.
This wikipedia article has numerous issues. Please help improve this article or discuss in the comments section:
* it may contain unverified claims;
* it may be written by someone who has a conflict of interest with the subject matter;
* it may comprise a series of aphorisms unlinked by coherent argument.
See also:
* Oliver Kamm (unflattering wikipedia entry on) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Kamm;
* previous articles in The Times by Oliver Kamm, parts of which appear to have been recycled word for word here;
* journalism (disambiguation).
I totally agree with Andrew Wright (3.47). Wikipedia is a good first stop for info but not to be used for scholarship.
I am someone with an honours History Degree who still teaches individual pupils for A level.
Wikipedia, I find, is excellent for an introduction and for checking facts. When, for instance, did Mazarin rule? Who were the Mamelukes? Who were the original Prussians?
But it is no substitute for real scholarship as found in books. For that, you need someone like John Keegan for war or someone like Nial Ferguson for Empire.
Both are useful! Why rubbish one or the other?
A small investigation into the quality of wikipedia articles versus Brittanica and (the now dead) Encarta can be found here:
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/119640/wikipedia-vs-the-old-guard.html
It seems to me that wikipedia does very well. Mr. Kamm criticises Wikidpedia's emphasis on consensus rather than truth but fails to acknowledge that the two are related.
Doesn't this article smack of intellectual elitism. That only those scholarly and learned people should have the trusted responsibility for the dissemination of 'knowledge' and ideas. And that any associated debate should also be limited to those worthy of contribution. Certainly not something for us mere villagers or Wikipediots. I suggest it also does a huge disservice to the great many intellectuals who support and contribute to this project in the spirit in which it was established. Come on Oliver, what are you scared of?
thekoshser's definition of 'shout down' must be much different than mine. The pro-Widipedia crowd seem to be asking that the author of this piece an other critics simply explore how it -actually- works, not rail against some rumor of how it works. Every one seems to be acknowledging that there are errors and omissions in the on-line encyclopedia. Those arguing against seem not to have visited the site at all.
Thank you, brood of Wikipediots, for descending on this article in precisely the way I described would happen.
What does it say about a "knowledge" project that attempts to shout down any form of valid criticism?
Wikipedia ranges from the scholarly researched essay to the honest erroneous, to blatant fallacy. As a person who regularly uses wikipedia, I know, as do other users, that it is an ideal beginning for any search.
Many essays are footnoted, guiding the seeker to other documents. If there are errors or silly inserts, one can change them immediately.
What is fantastic about Wikipedia is that it treats fictional characters as 'real', covers films and television programs, and very often is the first place where something new appears.
Further, as even those in the (gasp) third world have access to wikipedia, one can actually get information from a real source not opinion, guess or propaganda from a first world academic who wouldn't know a breadfruit from a soupsop.
Mr. Kamm's claims about "consensus" and "popular agreement" and "lack of interest in Truth" [my summary of his points, not direct quotes] seem to me to indicate lack of familiarity with the object of his scorn. Many articles are footnoted and documented extensively. Where an assertion is made without corresponding backup, there is usually a warning posted. Where "Truth" is in dispute, there is acknowledgment of that disagreement. To believe the "Truth" can only reside in "experts" is to abdicate responsibility to understand and contribute to the Scientific Method that Mr. Kamm extols, and that I subscribe to. I think he simply misses the point.
After Gutenberg had invented printing, a lot of stupidities, a lot of false truth and a lot of pseudo science have been printed, and spread around the world.
Much more than what is now available on Wikipedia.
And all of it had to be read carefully, and believed only if quite a lot of people would testify about their accuracy.
That is still true now in the days of the electronic publishing. Specially when some reporter writes what he thinks about Wikipedia, after no obvious investigations using a scientific method that many people have been able to check.
Before believing any assertions in this article we should wait long enough until many people have had the time to seriously check their accuracy.
Are you concerned that the untutored masses are being exposed to erroneous information? Why don't you write about the media then if you really want to get your teeth into something?
Mr Kamm. You are trying to make it appear that you understand what Wikipedia is and what it represents but I don't think you do. You seem to have a kind of loathing for it but to my mind that's not really the kind of source I want to trust.
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Unless I've missed a meeting, I don't think that encyclopaedias in themselves really do that much to advance the human race. I'm sorry it has disappointed you in not being good enough as a scholarly reference source but as you still have your libraries and books, what are you complaining about? You can get your knowledge from reading books covered in dust and other people can get their knowledge elsewhere. Don't see the problem is really. Are you concerned that the untutored masses are being exposed to erroneous information? Why don't you write about the media then if you really want to get your teeth into something?
We can all agree that Wikipedia is ropy sometimes - just like your article. It's an assemblage of opinions and facts and opinions masquerading as facts - just like your article. Well, easy on the facts. You don't have many of them.
But to say it is 'junk' does nothing but reveal what seems to be an intense dislike for the Internet and the democratisation of knowledge. You see Mr Kamm, in the past, knowledge was the privilege of wealth and power. Are you saying that is what we need to return to? Your article seems to suggest that you can't stand the fact that this knowledge is in the hands of a wider audience than was ever possible before the growth of the Internet. Wikipedia may not be perfect but then neither are you. Unlike you, it has reached a wide audience and it is popular. Perhaps that's what you don't like about it.
The neutrality of this comment is disputed.
Silly article of the quality we must expect from Kamm. Did he do any research? Did he even find out anything about Wikipedia? No, he recycled the ignorant assumptions that have been pushed about by media luvvies since they heard about it last year. Wikipedia gets better all the time in a constant process of enhancement, correction, addition and peer reviewing. It's an attempt to tap into the combined knowledge of people, not the elite who decide only they are fit to instruct the rest of us. We all have knowledge and can add to this joint effort, knowing that if we add anything wrong, it will be challenged or removed. 'thekohser' seems to have an anti Wikipedia agenda which entirely escapes me unless [s]he has had something rubbished by other contributors and is nurturing a juvenile grudge as a result. But is Kamm critiquing Wikipedia or a book about it, the quality of which is down to the author alone? Wikpedia is not anti-intellectual, it embraces intellectuals as much as anyone, it just doesn't say they are the only people allowed to disseminate knowledge. It's certainly anti-elitist, perhaps that's what's got Kamm hot and bothered, and his cheerleader, thekohser. As neil mcgowan said, is this news, it it topical? Is it even of interest?
Wikipedia is packed with information, and the result of the efforts of thousands of people, many with more knowledge of their subject than a mere journo like Kamm could possibly possess. I suppose he objects to non specialists having the vote too.
Date of the article in question : 1st. April.
Need I say more ... even if it is only an opinionated book review ?
Bravo, Mister Kamm! You've hit the nail resoundingly on the head.
It shouldn't be long before a certain brood of Wikipediots descends upon this article and scoffs at how misguided you are. Should you reply to them, might I suggest that you ask them to explain, ontologically, how Wikipedia is different than WannaSpell.com? Or, simply ask them what they think of the website track record of Jimmy Wales -- you know, Bomis.com, OpenServing.com, Search Wikia.
On the day that 5000 people marched against those who'd got fat starting Hedge Funds - a man who started a Hedge Fund writes a fact-free diatribe against people having no-fee access to information. Is this news? Is it topical? Next week, Oliver Kamm tells us about toffees.