Well, maybe not, if the subject of a biography, such as Jaron Lanier, can't correct his entry to what he knows to be true, and have it remain so. In his Edge essay, he explained that he is not a film director, yet Wikipedia says he is. Everytime he corrects it, someone else--who, truth be told, probably knows less about Jaron that Jaron himself--changes it back.
At this point, I was ready to cast off Wikipedia for good (well, I probably couldn't stop cold turkey), when I thought, "I wonder if his entry still says film director?"
So, I looked it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaron_Lanier. He's no longer a film director! I realized, of course, that he could have just tried again to fix it five minutes before got to the site, so I visited the history of revisions page. Around August 16, someone had tried to add film maker again. However, this time, it was immediately corrected--not by Jaron--and the editor added a "see talk" note.
In the talk near the top of the page, there was some interesting, intelligent conversation going on. Wikipedia contributors were referencing Lanier's online "Digital Maoism" essay. Less informed people might post questions or complaints here, but all argument seemed to be level-headed. Answers were given clearly, and the "winning" side used good sources.
My favorite part, however, was Lanier's comments, and the responses to them, lower on the page. At this point, things just got weird. A commenter made a good point, that the subject of the biography might be biased about some interpretations, or might prefer to have some details highlighted and others hushed, even if they are all true. Sure.
Then, however, I just got a little freaked out. In June, someone named Fabian wrote: "lanier simply complains that his private point of view on his person differs from the public perception, that's why i say: who cares. undoubtly it is a rare luxus to have somebody to comment his or her own legend, but i think it is quite naive and self-overestimated to believe he or she has the "authors rights" on how his or her public personality is finally perceived by public." While the point is still that a public person might want to hide certain facts (I'm sure we could all insert a scandal involving a politician here), this gets a little creepy. Yes, when the facts are checked and undeniable proof exists about a certain person, that public person can't necessarily refuse to let it be discussed. However, just because 100, or even 1000, Wikipedia contributors say it's true, that doesn't make it true, or noteworthy. Suddenly images from Lord of the Flies jumped to mind.
Fortunately, voices of reason (those with good sources) prevailed. Still, I'm sure there will be people trying to offer hear-say and/or conspiracy websites as sources for the next proposed change. In one of my past LIS classes, someone discussed an idea of librarians somehow partnering with Wikipedia. I think the idea involved having librarians give the resources, or monitor the content, or something. It seemed to rob Wikipedia of a bit of its magic. However, maybe Wikipedia should consider making its users do an online Information Literacy tutorial before they are allowed to become contributors...
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/lanier06_index.html
No comments:
Post a Comment