|
|
This article is best considered an Op Ed piece. It is not about computer security, nor is it really about computers. It is one man’s struggle to come to grips with the impact of an increasingly entrenched, and exceedingly convenient technology on the dissemination, indeed the very definition of knowledge.
Not long ago, I read an Op Ed piece by Bernard Haisch entitled “Why Wiki can drive you wacky” that was reprinted from The Los Angeles Times. Mr. Haisch is the president of the Digital Universe Foundation, an organization that is preparing a free, internet based encyclopedia based upon contributions authored by experts.
Being a scholar, the accumulation and faithful dissemination of knowledge is of critical importance to me. Thus, I began to contemplate the relative merits of Wikipedia, and its burgeoning off springs, and Digital Universe. Realistically, the internet should be a useful tool for the aggregation, storage, coherent organization, and dissemination of knowledge.
I was introduced to Wikipedia by a trusted friend and colleague who informed me of the basic concept. As I understood it, Wiki is predicated upon the assumption that given sufficient time, and sufficient contributors, content will undergo an iterative, intellectual random walk to asymptotically approach epistemologically sound knowledge. Implicit is that contributors will adhere to the tenets of intellectual integrity. I was skeptical to say the least.
I undertook an experiment and visited the Wikipedia website in search of an article on a topic within my own field of long established expertise--a subject that is highly complex, esoteric, and falls within the realm of the physical sciences. Surprisingly perhaps, I found one, and I have returned periodically--over many months--to follow its evolution. My observations indicate that each and every time that new content has been added, the original author has reinstated his original text. Additions have been incorporated, but all content remains that of a single, unidentifiable author. I have published many peer reviewed research papers in the field under discussion, yet even I had to read the article repeatedly to even begin to glean its meaning.
I attempted another experiment, searching out an article on another topic within another of my fields of long established expertise, also complex, esoteric, and within the physical sciences. Yet again I found an entry. This one I needed to read only once. It was pure intellectual pap.
Discouraged, I gave up on Wikipedia except in rare instances. Simply put, unless you are already an expert, how can you possibly evaluate the credibility of the content? If you are already an expert, then there is really little need for that content. Undoubtedly, much Wikipedia content is of high quality. But which content? How does a reader distinguish opinion and assertion from critical and objective analysis? Wisdom from lunacy? It comes down to a question of blind trust. Yet as Mr. Haisch reasonably points out, “Wikipedia is growing rapidly in its number of articles and users, and for many people Wikipedia will be the first and only source they’ll see.”
I was therefore intrigued when I learned of Digital Universe. Like Wikipedia, it would be free and readily accessible over the internet, yet authored by experts in their respective disciplines. I visited the Digital Universe website to examine available content and to scrutinize the criteria used to identify and select their expert contributors.
I failed to find content comparable to that at Wikipedia, that is, nothing in my areas of specialization. Thus I cannot offer an enlightened critical opinion as to content. I did find data on the stated criteria applied in their selection of experts. Individuals applying for expert status must submit information including a Curriculum Vitae, letters of reference, and a list of publications. In principle, a rigorous review process based upon such information is sound.
My dilemma is this. Do I utilize a source having extensive content of possibly dubious, and certainly unknown merit, or one having comparatively meager content of potentially more reliable and superior quality? What are the consequences of the spread of suspect and erroneous material?
The real issue ultimately becomes whether one believes that knowledge is acceptably defined via an egalitarian, intellectually democratic process, or by an elitist few. Pragmatically, I have no answers to offer. The Wiki-syndrome is unlikely to fade away, our culture increasingly embraces the opinions of the “man on the street,” and polls are ubiquitous. Philosophically, I do know however, that when I wish to enlighten myself on some matter of interest, I will be found deep within the library stacks, surrounded by the smells of ancient dust and old leather, desperate to find a piece of paper upon which I can write with my fountain pen.
"
|
|
|
 |
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
| |
|
Login |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
· New User? · Click here to create a registered account.
|
|
|
Article Rating |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Score: 3.33
Votes: 3
|
|
|
