Listener Andrew Beckerman responds to the Wikipedia interview:
In response to the wikipedia piece in which you guys gave two models: the canonical Truth model of the standard encyclopedia and the intersubjective agreement of the wikipedia. All of these presuppose that there *has* to be a single version of events though. While wikipedia is definitely a quantum leap in the deposing of canonical Truths, it still is parasitic on the one-dimensional model of there being a definite, albeit sometimes controversial, description. As in the Polish/Russian controversy, wouldn’t it be even more beneficial to recognize the disagreement and allow both to co-exist? When you guys talked about trying to get rid of bias, I think one of the problems *is* trying to get rid of bias when this is an impossible criterion. The key rather is to recognize the biases and have them as an added datum in the equation, to better make a decision. (like in standpoint methodology)
to which Luke replies:
One of the things Piotr mentioned was that they would never change facts, “Facts are facts” but surely they may also be subject to these biases. Are you suggesting that by reaching a compromise in a wiki article, the authors are in fact diluting the subject matter?
Andy:
re: diluting the subject matter, not necessarily. I think coming to a compromiseis a good, actually a much better, way of understanding things than just accepting a canonical Truth, but it is still then creating it’s own canon, just one decided on by a different and probably much more accurate method. One has to acknowledge that there is no such thing as a non-biased entry. Everything is coming from a particular epistemological or conceptual framework, and you can never do anything about it except acknowledge that there will always be incompatible understandings. The trick then is to figure out which understandings are worthwhile and which ones are not. *That’s* the extremely difficult part.
Piotr? Any thoughts?
technorati tags: governance, wikipedia, democracy, Digital Citizen
/images/blinklist_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Blink It •
/images/delicious_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Del.icio.us •
/images/furl_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Furl •
/images/spurl_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Spurl •
/images/technorati_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Technorati •
/images/boingboing_icon.gif){kind=icon}
BoingBoing •
/images/slashdot_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Slashdot •
/images/digg_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Digg
/images/website.gif)
/images/email.gif)
Comments • [comment feed]
Tnx Andy for your comments. I will address your concerns using some quotes from our (linked) policies - much thought has gone into them, and I believe you can find an answer to most of concivable comments on our pages:
“wouldn’t it be even more beneficial to recognize the disagreement and allow both to co-exist?”
It may be tempting at times to ‘balance’ a perceivedly biased article by creating an additional article on the same subject but biased the other way. Such articles are often referred to as “POV forks”. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Point of Views on a certain subject are treated in one article.
“One has to acknowledge that there is no such thing as a non-biased entry.”
Wikipedia has realised this - you may find reading through our description of the Neutral Point of View interesting. It states that articles should be written without bias, representing all majority and significant minority views fairly. This is the neutral point of view policy.
“The trick then is to figure out which understandings are worthwhile and which ones are not. *That’s* the extremely difficult part.”
True. Our NPOV policy doesn’t assume that writing an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view is possible. Instead it says to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct. Crucially, a great merit of Wikipedia is that Wikipedians work together to make articles unbiased.
I would argue that this working together is the true genius of wiki technology and Wikipedia. We are all better when we have others to bounce ideas off and build knowledge together. For all the obvious points of struggle and shortfalls, this is, as Andy says, a major step in the right direction.