There’s been an interesting discussion about Wikipedia since last weekend. The discussion was sparked by John Seigenthaler’s article in USA Today where he decries Wikipedia for allowing a false entry about himself to be posted on the site and go unnoticed for several months.
I should start by mentioning that I like Wikipedia. I think it exemplifies everything that an information society should strive to be. It’s democratic, it promotes critical thinking, it involves interaction with a large community to construct and share knowledge, it promotes transparency in knowledge construction, it promotes mediation, it’s dynamic, and so on and so forth. Some might still ask how this relates to this blog’s overall topic of development. I think that there’s an obvious connection – let’s face it, a lot of the “knowledge” that has been collected on the Internet is “Western” and therefore reflects the views of a minority of the world population. Every society should be considered a knowledge base, able to make a valuable contribution to our shared knowledge, no matter what their “level” of development. Tools like Wikipedia are ideal for giving a voice to those with a different perspective that can expand our common understanding of many issues.
Back to Seigenthaler. Seigenthaler’s method of dealing with this situation, once he discovered it, illustrates an emerging digital divide – between the “get its” and the “clueless”. First of all, why didn’t Seigenthaler just change the entry and get on with things? Yes, he’s 78 years old, but he had the intelligence to be able to find out when the entry was created, how long it has been on the web, how many times it was edited, and the IP and ISP of the originator, but he couldn’t just change the entry? Secondly, Seigenthaler rails against Wikipedia stating “I am interested in letting many people know that Wikipedia is a flawed and irresponsible research tool.” Wikipedia is no more flawed than any other resource. Face it, information is man-made. Creators may have an agenda or may not have a sufficient understanding of what they are talking about. This goes for any information. What is irresponsible is relying only on one source of information, be it Wikipedia or the Encyclopedia Britannica. If we keep this in mind, we minimize the risk of being misinformed. What is remarkable about information technologies today is that when you encounter suspect information, you can actually do something about it. Not doing so, is irresponsible.
The “get its” are the ones who are creating content on the Internet – on Wikipedia, on their blogs, in podcasts, and elsewhere. They know that the relationship between “truth” and information is a shaky one at best. They know that the only way to avoid misinformation is for every individual to share as much as they “know” on topics of relevance. The “clueless” are still waiting to be served the ultimate “truth” – à la carte and on a platter.
