Friday, August 29th, 2008...7:29 am
Wikipedia’s illusion
Wikipedia, like every encylclopedia is based on an illusion. What does encyclopedia promise? A place where the whole mankind knolwledge is gathered. The idea is beautiful, very modern and linked to the idea of a better access to knowledge. But how is this knowledge built? What is the intention behind?
For the french encylopedists in the eighteenth century it was to bring “light” to the people. But for wikipedia ? It seems to be a very close goal but instead of being written with a couple of intellectuals, it is based on a consensus process.
The illusion of knowledge pricesely comes from the idea of consensus. Mathematics apart, knowledge is just debate and never consensus. Every phd student, knows that studying a deep point of a field is first to understand the point of view of every thinker about the subject and to discuss their ways of thinking.
So knowledge seems more about to know and be part of discussion than building a consensus.
PS : This critic apart, I am a great supporter of wikipedia.
PS 2 : The initials of Denis Diderot are always fun for an encyclopedist
6 Comments
August 29th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Interesting post. Still, I’m not sure that consensus is really the main aspect of Wikipedia’s knowledge building process. On every controversial issue – especially politics and religion -, Wikipedia’s holders are forced to block the articles’ editing.
Thus, debate is still present on Wikipedia. To my mind, the real illusion, when you compare Wikipedia to Diderot’s encyclopedia, is to believe that anyone is intellectually able to bring something to knowledge. It’s this illusion on which the so-called “Web 2.0″ was founded.
PS : Wikipedia doesn’t “promess”, it promises.
August 29th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Criticus, I agree with you on the fact that debates does exists in wikipedia. But their articles rather reflects the concensus part of a precise knowledge field.
Even if debates are mentionned or lives on other pages, that is not the heart of their offer.
On your point about the intellectual ability to bring somthing about knowledge, I think everyone has a point about something. My little cousin can bring her Tokyo Hotel knowledge for example… It migh not interest you but certainly it will interest another fan of her age or even her parents.
The thing we discover with 2.0 is the subjectivity of knowledge (and the importance of debates).
Thanks for the english lesson
August 29th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
You’re right, provided your little cousin doesn’t rewrite an article on the Teutonic Knights !
But I agree with you about the subjectivity of knowledge. I just think that Web 2.0 didn’t invent this idea. The French “Ecole des Annales”, stating that “everything is history” (and, thus, knowledge) showed the path… that the Web took, much later.
PS : you’re welcome. BTW, I’m French, just like you apparently (I see you read Patrice Lamothe’s excellent blog, “Cratyle”). So, why don’t you use our beautiful language, that the English speakers for whom you write – I guess – love to hear and, for some of them, read ? (otherwise, they wouldn’t be so numerous visiting Paris and French regions).
August 29th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Ah! The “ecole des annales” ! You are right.
Yes I am french, but I am very interested in writing in the most international language I can speak or write.
As you may know, Patrice and I (and a couple of others) are developping an internet project… we cannot ignore english speaking people.
BTW Patrice, already has an excellent french blog!
August 31st, 2008 at 12:02 pm
“The most international language”… this is not the idea of globalization that I had. I thought that every language could play its role. And that English speakers could, at last (and at least), learn foreign languages… that’s just too bad.
August 31st, 2008 at 3:41 pm
I meant the most common language, but I understand your point just do not know how to solve it…
Leave a Reply