Following on from this recent piece:
Jay Doubleyou: alternative wikipedias
Today's Daily Telegraph came out with this piece:
You think the BBC is biased? Check out Wokepedia
- with the full transcript available here on Reddit:
You think the BBC is biased? Check out Wokepedia : ukpolitics
Here's a personal comment:
The Telegraph piece presses a few rather biased buttons of its own, as far as my own reading goes - that the fundraising is 'aggressive'; that we've seen an expansion of 'bureaucracy' and 'lobbyists'; we need to mention Herr Marx of course; that Wikipedia loves Clinton (just as CNN was named Clinton News Network before the creation of Fox News); etc, etc.
Then we come to the 'biases' of some 'elite', which is really rather tiresome if predictable - that Wikipedia is part of the Silicon Valley cabal; and that 'certain' entries are cleaned up to omit anything embarrassing. Well, I've certainly learnt to take with a very large measure of salt any entry on any corporation or state or organisation, as there are of course people employed to keep things squeaky clean.
But, then, that's the beauty of Wikipedia: you can go to the history of edits and see what's been altered/added. And this is something I urge my students to do. In fact, this makes Wikipedia one of the most transparent 'media companies' out there.
Also interesting is to compare entries in different languages: I've had Argentine students look at the Spanish/English/French/Swedish entry on the History of the Falkland Islands, for example, and we can see in detail how they differ; and from the languages we don't speak, we can still read the prominence/order of events and protagonists.
As for the 'teenager' who 'wrote' the entry on Scots, well, that shows how transparent the whole set-up is: the fact is that we know about this and that it can be pointed out and corrected: problem sorted.
Wikipedia does not 'generate facts' - any more than any other author, media organisation or university does: everyone has 'biases' and everyone selects information according to a preconceived narrative or framework. The point is that, again, Wikipedia is transparent, in that not only can the information trail be verified, but it can be challenged. I cannot challenge that of the Telegraph or of Encyclopedia Britannica, at least in the same way.
Yes, there should never be a 'single source of information' and it is ridiculous to suggest this - and such suggestions should be of concern to everyone, whether 'conservative' or not. But I do often use Wikipedia as a starting point - and use its references and reading list as a further point of travel - because I see it as offering a plurality of viewpoints and a stimulus to enquiry. It throws up questions and challenges orthodoxy - which is perhaps why 'conservatives' feel uncomfortable and have created this strange beast 'Conservapedia' which is obsessed with biblical references to homosexuality and the like. Very strange.
Fundamentally, though, when it comes to 'facts', Wikipedia has been shown to be as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica. What's keeping Wikipedia from being allowed in academic citations is due to "jealousy regarding the loss of the knowledge dissemination monopoly" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6889752/
If you know how to use it, then it's a great resource: https://www.edutopia.org/article/teaching-students-how-use-wikipedia-wisely Problem is that, as with most sources of information, people don't question the sources or framing - whether it's the Telegraph or whatever, as they're probably too comfortable with how things are portrayed. In fact, because all its 'weaknesses' are obvious, "Wikipedia encourages users to be attentive and use their critical judgment" - whereas with other media, users do not respond in this way: https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-as-wikipedia-turns-20-how-credible-is-it/a-56228222
But actually, regarding the Telegraph piece's main thrust, I would say it doesn't matter who's paying for the 'media company's output' (although we could ask what the 'agenda' is of the Barclay brothers, one of whom is still with us; plus, there's an interesting footnote on who pays the piper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Telegraph#cite_note-OpenDemocracy_17_February_2015-12) The most important thing is whether the information produced is OK: we should not attack the messenger, just because we find the message unpalatable.
To finish, this is my favourite alternative to Wikipedia, which says it all: https://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/RationalWiki#Conservative_Bias
.
.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment