I wanted to start a new thread on Wikipedia, because even though it's not a topic of this class in any immediate sense, it really has reshaped the way we all think about research.
For the record, I am not anti-Wikipedia. I've looked at plenty of its entries, and at this point in its existence I'd consider most any entry having to do with a fairly common and uncontroversial topic--the city of Belgrade, chaos theory, mammals--just as good if not better than the Encyclopedia Brittanica (and free to boot!). Even the controversial topics that are the most frequently vandalized and repaired, like the ones on politics, can be really illuminating if you look at their editing history to see how the debate over what constitites "fact" and what constitutes "interpretation" shakes out.
The problem is in the margins--the vast part of the Wikiuniverse that hasn't been fully fleshed out yet. There's no entry for Chicano literature, Hispanic-American literature, or Latino literature, though there are scattered entries on various authors. The entry on "Chicano" is actually, I think, pretty good (except for this odd statement: "The heritage of many Chicanos originates in San Gabriel, NM, first established in 1598 by Juan de Onate": some proud New Mexican wrote that, I know, but it makes absolutely no sense statistically!). But note if you go there that the section on "cultural aspects" is nearly all about music, though there is a list of Chicano poets/writers with stubs and links. Now, you could simply conclude that someone just needs to fill in all those stubs and keep adding information, and eventually, in another year or ten, Wikipedia will become an outstanding reference source on the subject.
Right now, however, the entries that you would find if you searched "chicano literature" would give you a pretty off-kilter sense of what people who are trained in the field consider important. For instance, among the 10 entries listed as most "relevant" by the search engine are two long biographies of Chicano Lit scholars (written by themselves? by their friends?). Someone looking for a quick information fix would look at this and conclude that these were the two best, most representative, or most respected scholars in the field--which would not be accurate. Only 3 of the authors we've read (or, in the case of Richard Rodriguez, intended to read) in this class appear in the top 20. Does that mean I'm perversely out of touch with who and what is really important in the field, or that the mechanism for ranking things according to the number of hits they get may not be a good method for sorting information? It's the same problem with doing research by Google's search engine: it's too easy for the less-important bit of information (or in some cases, wrong or extremely partial information) to masquerade as more significant than it actually is.
Of course, the scholarly publications stored in the library are not a perfect format either. Every academic knows that there is a lot of hack work out there, and much of it, unfortunately, winds up in the very reference books that students (and Wikipedia editors) tend to go to most readily and cite as authoritative. (This is why I directed you to articles in refereed journals.) I was fuming a bit about the incredibly banal entry on "American literature," which doesn't reflect at all the interesting turns of the past 2 decades of scholarship, and particularly the demeaning add-on about "other ethnics" at the end. But the sources it cites include a scholarly reference work. . . from a publishing house that those of us who've been around for a while know to be kind of a publishing mill that recycles second-hand information.
If everyone is an equal participant in the creation of knowledge (which is the radically democratic idea of Wikipedia, one I'm very attracted to), then no one's knowledge means more than anyone else's. But it also makes me think of Mr. Incredible's unsettling words: "When everyone is special, no one is." Or, if arguments between Wikipedia editors who disagree get settled by citing some scholarly reference or another, then maybe it's not so radical after all, since the library is the ultimate authority.
An excellent article in the New Yorker recently discussed this paradox: see
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
After reading the post I was reminded of an episode of the Colbert report where during a portion of the show he asked his audience to edit a wikipedia page, which they did, and eventually the informatino became completelty false. The site had to close that page temporarily and it brought up some interesting questions to the moderators of the site. If the site is free and open, should they be allowed to monitor the facts that get put up? Not to be overly ironic but heres an interesting link about the influence of wikipedia...hosted by wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiality
I know this problem of the Internet and its sources is an important one, and I think its growing importance lies in the immediate, easy, and sometimes-free accessibility. Of course the problem of the online sources you mentioned are extremely valuable and seemingly reproductive like a fast-spreading disease. This problem of authenticity, quality, and accuracy exist in other artistic forms and media that I think we thank technological advances and human laziness for. I'm reminded of the decreasing interest and availability of the fine arts sector and most vividly non-profit organizations. It's become more difficult, more expensive, and more individually motivating-required to experience, appreciate and support the fine arts sector. It takes time, effort, education, and of course cash to effectively participate in those "old fashion" activities that the T.V. and radio don't request. The library and books, I feel, have the same opponent of comfort of home and time-lacking lifestyles. While certain sites like Wikipedia are extremely helpful and at least entertaining, it does disenchant our intellectual hope when we (eager students and professors, etc.) have to understand that so many others out there that aren't comparing the "facts" with the facts in essence condone this ever escaping tradition, when history becomes myth; and then how are we to ever cohesively agree and understand any one thing?
I don't know how this problem could be solved, it seems like the problem of ignorance will always exist. And as Carrisa said, is Wikipedia (and other sources) suppose to monitor the information. Is that defeating its purpose or regulating/controlling history too much? I think these questions will come up again and again in the future of the internet and education across the board, and I think the best answer for now is that of knowing within our selves and choosing to read all the sources possible with everything we read, research and learn.
Post a Comment