Thanks for visiting my blog, Serving Bread. Here you'll read stories, insights, reflections and ramblings from a campus minister, father, husband and Jesus-follower. If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
For many of us, wikipedia has become the authoritative word on any subject. For those of you who don’t know, it is a huge, online collaboration on articles. It is formed, edited and updated in community. It encourages anyone and everyone to contribute to it, and assures contributors that mistakes are usually caught pretty quickly.
What fasicnates me about wikipedia is that it is an experiment in postmodernity. For one, it encourage and values community over authority. (In fact, you can read in the September issue of The Atlantic Monthly the debate and conflict over the recognition of authority) Articles are written in community and it does not necessarily recognize the expert behind the article. A recent Nature study compared Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia science articles and found that the difference was negligible [1]. Although there may be “experts” who are contributing, their thoughts and writings are accountable to the community.
Since the community creates and decides the fate of articles, wikipedia seems to also be an experiment in ‘truth’. Marshall Poe writes,
We tend to think of truth as something that resides in the world. The fact that two plus two equals four is written in the stars–we merely discovered it. But Wikipedia suggests a different theory of truth. Just think about the way we learn what words mean. Generally speaking, we do so by listening to other people (our parents first). Since we want to communicate with them (after all, they feed us), we use the words in the same way they do. Wikipedia says judgments of truth and falsehood work the same way. The community decides that two plus two equals four the same way it deicdes what an apple is: by consensus. Yes, that means that if the community changes its mind and decides that two plus two equals five, then two plus two does equal five. The community isn’t likely to do such an absurd or useless thing, but it has the ability.[2]
Wikipedia is a product of our generational philosophy and the power of technology. As we engage in a postmodern world, wikipedia is a reflection of community. I think of leading Bible Studies with young students where the community sets the pace and the path of discovery. It is very vulnerable to allow young students to decide the direction and meaning of scripture. It means that it can change “its mind and decide that two plus two equals five” but I take comfort when it doesn’t do such an absurd or useless thing.
-----
If you enjoyed this post, be sure to grab the RSS feed. Also, please take a moment to submit this post through "Share This" above.
-----
|
Related Posts: |
I love the whole thing because I came up with big authority and little community.
But I’d love to hear some critical stuff from you pomos about that take. All I hear is generational praise and enthusiasm.
The wisdom of crowds is fraught with danger.
Thanks Tom for stopping by and for your comment. I’m with you that crowds are not necessarily (or perhaps rarely) trustworthy. But I wonder if it’s the fine line of crowd and community where the values of postmodernism tread. Perhaps the definition of community has changed or is changing. At its worst, maybe what is called community is actually “crowd” and maybe that’s a bit more dangerous than we might anticipate.