Wikipedia as an active historical research forum

Wikipedia already is the default information engine for the world. Governments are beginning to support it. It does more good than harm for the intentions are good. I'm sure they will come up with better ways of assessing the information in time.

The Internet was first of all set up with the intention of sharing information between American colleges. The users soon found other purpose like porn, games and making money and the money became the tail that wags the dog. You even have swine like Jstor that prostitute the original intention by charging for what once was free. All this went through the American Supreme Court by the defenders of freedom. However backed by Bush the courts made the horrendous decision that the Internet was free, so therefore people could charge what they like with spammers allowed. At least Wikipedia is not being a party to this crime against humanity that looks for what is our wallets and not in our hearts.

The problem is not that of charging fees, information is a valuable commodity especially if it is going to be held up as the absolute and definitive truth. The problem is that absolutely ANYONE can put up the information in the first place and that people will then unquestioningly accept that information as correct is the scary part.

Wikipedia is too open to abuse and is indeed being abused.  Despite all checks and balances that wikipedia employs, it is still very easy to by pass them. The numbers aren�t there to patrol and edit articles adequately, as a result a core few can end up regularly deciding what is or isn't "truth" with no more qualification than they have the time and energy to make sure they can implement their view.

As more and more people use wikipedia as their default information engine it means more and more people�s first contact with a subject is from wikipedia. That is an immense responsible to hand over to something so easily abused and how far it could be taken is a scary thought, almost some kind of Orwellian nightmare: who controls the past controls the future. Who controls wikipedia controls the past.

While I�m sure wikipedia can be good for certain subjects, as a historical source, in my experience, it fails miserably. Wikipedia may have good intentions, but as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

That's my point, it's not balancing out because a) it's the same people looking after the same topics or b) there is not enough new people around to fix the errors.




Edited by F�dhla - 28-Aug-2007 at 18:34

That many articles are not accurate is a price we have to pay for having this source of information at all. Depending on the subject those who write the articles never are impartial. If you wanted an article on canning food then the articles are wonderful, If you wanted an article on Henry VIII then it's bound to be written according to the religion and politics of the writer. The same goes with Mary Queen of Scots and other subjects that still are deeply emotional to some because some the worldwide groups they belong to have an agenda to follow and damn the truth.

Then I'm only giving English examples for the laid back Brits do allow mention these contentious issues in their great history. One has to stay diplomatic. Forget reading newspapers and actual reports from the period of time you are looking for, that really does cause trouble like in the Balkans. It's all a big balancing act at times, unless you are interested in knitting or croquet and other such thrilling subjects.  But don't go asking for  people to pay  to get more accurate information , that argument has only ever led to further erosion of the rights for all to know and learn.

The payemnts thing has been through the Supreme Court of America where they gave a shocking and politically influenced decision that shamefully allowed for spamming! This is not a trivial issue and people should be aware of the end result. You can pay for education and still get the same thing as you once got for free in many places. The dark spectre of misinformation is more like to happen once monetary values are placed on education.


Edited by elenos - 02-Sep-2007 at 22:20

I'll look it up, has to be among my computer mags somewhere. I'm not putting down Americans for it was American computer groups  who carried this matter so far.

Just been looking up the subject on the net.  I heard about just one case a few years back that made a bad decision. Since then there have been many other cases that go one way and then another and the whole thing has become totally confusing in sorting one from another.


Edited by elenos - 02-Sep-2007 at 22:47

I don't mind the work in surfing for I enjoy the experience of adding to my knowledge. I have always been a fast reader. I find many sources, save the web page and draw out the information I want on having a second look or third look and eliminate the improbable. I have quite a few sources in general agreement before I concede the point. Having just the one source is never enough, so I suppose Wiki is not such a problem with me. What really gets me is you are just on the point of finding all you want tho know and then it says "more citations needed."

Yes, I find that, but haven't thought about it before. You do get many interesting links from Wiki. In Google you can get endless false leads unless you can put what you want in just the right terms. The worst thing is to go through several links, get distracted and lose the lot never to find them again. I hate it when that happens. I try going through the history button but it loses track too for I go through many links in a session.