The Best Possible Information

The term “Wikipedia” is a contradiction in itself. Wiki (from the Hawaiian word for “quick”) implies that the website is based around an open access ideal. There is nothing to be forwarded, the information is posted for all to see and all (with permission and qualification in this case) are allowed to edit/add to that information posted. However, the “pedia” in Wikipedia originates from the word “encyclopedia”. An encyclopedia consists of accurate and approved information. The truth of the matter is that Wikipedia is not an “open access ideal” as we often perceive it to be. For once, Michael Scott is wrong. An individual cannot simply edit any article they want, whenever they want, however they want. There exists a system of checks and balances (i.e.: gatekeepers) that are in place to prevent just anyone from editing the site. Wikipedia controls the flow of information permitted for display – which is very often a good thing, especially considering that the internet is already full of false information.

Harold Innis, Canadian economist, spoke against this apparent monopoly over knowledge (Empire and Communications, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972) . In short, a knowledge monopoly can separate a group into the “knowledge elite” and the ignorant. This monopolization of knowledge acts as a catalyst to the centralization of power. Therefore, those who control the information (the centralized powers) will define history. This is particularly dangerous in a web 2.0 environment where powerful corporations like Google thrive. Not only is history determined by the winner, but reality (“in the now”) is designed to encourage a consumer ideology. The twitter generation, as we are often called, is exposed to advertising at a unprecedented rate. For example, one cannot log into Facebook without seeing at least 10 ads and at least 3 “top stories”. From game invites to Coca-Cola, we are treated as inanimate eyeballs to be advertised to and told what to read. In reality, Beyoncé’s changed lyric that may or may not call out Jay-Z as a cheater has absolutely zero relevance to my life. This narrative is as distracting as it is useless, especially when it shadows much more important world events that will actually affect people’s lives (i.e.: the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts).

George Orwell’s most revered novel (and, coincidentally, the internet’s unofficial declaration of independence), 1984 (1949), referred to a similar threat. The Ministry of Truth (partly inspired by the UK’s Ministry of Information) tirelessly works on making revision upon revision to historically significant cultural events in order to comfortably place the government’s ideologies in the realm of good reason. I would never go so  far as to label Wikipedia as Big Brother, but the site’s vague similarities to the “fictional” Ministry of Truth’s tactics are discomforting. This is why I’m currently aligned with the “inclusionists” of the Wikipedia debate. Of course, in this scenario, it is easy to protest the quality of information that would “get by” with the lack of censorship and gate keeping; but I am not against censorship or gate keeping, within their own reasonable boundaries, that is.

Every information system must have checks and balances in place in order to prevent vandalism. However, the responsibility of censorship should not be left to one group, furthermore, censorship should always be open for debate (i.e.: public and internal investigation). Unfortunately, Wikipedia has revealed its shortcomings in this regard with the recent frenzy of edit vs. edit battles in relation to the #YesAllWomen Wikipedia entry (to read more about this campaign, refer to the following blog post: https://sc11kw.wordpress.com/2014/06/20/the-passion-of-the-hashtag/). Wikipedia shouldn’t keep this debate behind closed doors. #YesAllWomen was not “feminist propaganda”, as it has been labelled in the past. It was a movement that challenged our society’s ideologies for the better, it opened the debate on modern sexism on a grand scale. Unfortunately, the article has now been nominated for deletion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/YesAllWomen) – this is very disappointing. Excluding this article would not only be a step away from democracy, it would be an insult to the victims of the California massacre.

Full story – There’s a Battle Going on Over the Wikipedia Page for #YesAllWomen: http://jezebel.com/theres-a-battle-going-on-over-the-wikipedia-page-for-y-1586704111