  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Wikipedia’s Libertarian RootsPosted on Jul 10, 2007
In a profile in the libertarian magazine Reason, the founder of Wikipedia explains how and why he launched the controversial site in order “to make the Internet not suck.” Turns out the plan is much bigger than just building a better encyclopedia and is based on the ideas of libertarian economist F.A. Hayek. “Encyclopedias aren’t the only places to gather knowledge, and by making tools available to create other kinds of collaborative communities, [Jimmy] Wales is fleshing out and bringing to life Hayek’s insights about the power of decentralized knowledge gathering, the surprising strength of communities bound only by reputation, and the fluidity of self-governance.” Previous item: China and Africa: Uneasy Bedfellows? Next item: Republican Senator's D.C. Madam Mea Culpa Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
|
Wake-Up Call for Team Obama
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By Stephen Smoliar, July 11, 2007 at 9:19 am #
It turns out that whether or not a “great experiment” like Wikipedia succeeds or fails is a long-standing problem in social theory. A good introduction to the problem may be found in the paper “Social Theory, Social Research, and a Theory of Action,” by James S. Coleman, where it is called the “micro-to-macro problem.” As irony would have it, Coleman has an entry in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_S._Coleman
Indeed, this paper is included in the list of his “Selected Works;” but there is no mention of his contribution to the study of the micro-to-macro problem in the entry itself.
Simply put, the “macro” is about the sorts of relations that occur between social groups. The example Coleman’s cites is the classic thesis about the “Protestant work ethic” formulated by Max Weber, the causal relationship between Protestant religious doctrine and a capitalist economy system. The “micro” on the other hand is about INDIVIDUAL behavior and thus occupies the “turf” of psychology. So, to continue with the Weber example, we have models for the relationship between Protestant doctrine and individual values; and we have models for the impact of individual values on the economic choices that those individuals make. What we LACK, however, is a model that explains the relationship between those individual economic choices and the emergence of a capitalist social system.
Another way of looking at this is in terms of the two extreme models of crowd behavior. These are generally known as “the madness of crowds” and “the wisdom of crowds.” The fact is that neither model holds all the time, and which model prevails depends on a whole lot of contextual details that tend to be ignored. In this respect the PROBLEM of the “micro-to-macro problem” is our inclination to avoid those details (just as Wikipedia avoided saying anything about them in its piece of James Coleman)!
Report thisBy ctbrandon, July 11, 2007 at 7:17 am #
The concept is good. The ability for anyone to share and gather information. The problems occur when the information given is no longer factual, and when the ones in charge begin to edit and delete that which they do not agree with. Power always corrupts.
brandon
Report thishttp://www.actforyourself.org
By Greg Bacon, July 11, 2007 at 4:42 am #
Wikipedia started out as a decent enterprise, but of late, they have sunken to censoring views they don’t like, while posting ones that agree with some sort of unknown strategy.
Like this one:
Long-time readers will recall how my entry at Wikipedia contained numerous errors which I kept correcting, and which kept getting reset back to the incorrect versions, until Wikipedia simply deleted my entry entirely. The last time the flawed information was reinserted, the ability to edit from outside Wikipedia was turned off, proving that the bad information came from within Wikipedia itself. - M. R.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/
Report thisBy Stephen Smoliar, July 10, 2007 at 2:39 pm #
Regarding great_satan’s second point (at #85690), the wiki concept was conceived as a light-weight means of enabling collaborative authoring. (Check out the Wikipedia entry for “Wiki!") It grew out of a time when lots of folks were interested in the theory of collaborative authoring but precious few lessons were learned out of its practice. Wikipedia is sort of the “great experiment” to test the hypothesis that one can author an encyclopedia collaboratively.
To some extent, then, great_satan is arguing that critical thinking emerges from collaborative usage. That was certainly the aspiration of the underlying wiki concept, but there are all sorts of nooks and crannies of socialization that are beyond the scope of that concept. Whether or not the wiki fosters collaboration has a lot to do with the social context of its users; and that is also true of whether wiki-enabled collaboration fosters critical thinking! It is clear from some of the examples cited in the Reason article that this kind of “magic” does not always happen. I have not been particularly impressed with what I have seen under the Discussion tab, but I am a pretty demanding critical reader!
Report thisBy C Villarreal, July 10, 2007 at 2:37 pm #
Nice theory but my guess is that wikipedia would easily fall apart if it weren’t for the fact that it is a nonprofit and is supported by other nonprofits. Nonprofits being highly regulated and restricted by a central government, they are not subject to all the same market forces and lack of regulation that libertarians so often believe will free human kind. Perhaps wikipedia would be just another google or yahoo or aol or worse if certain libertarians had their way. In its present form, wikipedia seems more a testament to social democracy than to libertarianism. And I do use it regularly.
http://www.shoplifters.us
Report thisBy great_satan, July 10, 2007 at 2:19 pm #
#85676 by Stephen Smoliar
Report thisI agree that reliance upon Wikipedia as an academic tool is rather weak, unless it is used as a springboard for further research.
This is not so much a matter of the viability of Wikipedia for what it is, but for teachers to maintain their standards in demanding sound and vigorous research on the part of their students.
But i wish to argue two points.
The first is that its accessibility renders more good than harm. In the past, when library research was the sole method of research available to the average Joe, there was less research going on in general, especially for those without access to a university library. In general, I would say that Wikipedia is superior to the sources one would find in a small town public library, assuming individuals would even alot the time for such research. So, it has functioned more to inform than it has to mislead.
Second, I think it erodes critical thinking if used passively, rather than interactively. The Wikipedia encourages criticism of its entries by the reader and continually points out when a section lacks proper reference or the material therein is contested.
Now, Google, that’s another story. Google does serve to corral the seeker onto those pages that either pay Google or are the most popular. It is nigh impossible to get into the remote areas of the internet through Google.
By Stephen Smoliar, July 10, 2007 at 1:28 pm #
I am no fan of Wikipedia. This is not to say that I avoid it. I can even confess to times when I have been pleasantly surprised with the results. However, consistent with a policy statement released by the history department at Middlebury College at the beginning of this year, I know better than to rely upon it:
http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2007/02/researc h-is-not-about-answers.html
More importantly, I have serious problems with the philosophy behind Wikipedia. In my previous blog I tried to make the case the Wikipedia has been eroding our skills for being critical readers; and I still hold to that position:
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-Mff23hgidqmHGqbcv.lfska kEtS6qLVHUEMFUG4-?cq=1&p=234
I suspect the problem is that, unlike his idol Hayek, Wales keeps himself blissfully unaware of the social context in which both his work and his philosophy are embedded. This is a context in which “direct paths” are not always the most effective, simply because the social mind does not work that way. Those interested in an elaboration of this point (with a little help from Ibsen) can consult:
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-Mff23hgidqmHGqbcv.lfska kEtS6qLVHUEMFUG4-?cq=1&p=97
Report thisBy great_satan, July 10, 2007 at 12:08 pm #
this is such a great rant on the conservapedia from he Daily Show
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=61730847135014 2071&q=conservapedia+daily+show&total=1&start=0 &num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
Report this