[Web4lib] Authority + Wikipedia

[Chuck0]

It's really good to see all of the interesting points being made about 
authority, accuracy and Wikipedia. I think that we librarians should 
look at this situation as a "teachable moment." The door is open wide 
for us to educate the public about "authority", accuracy, and what makes 
a good reference tool.

I have a love-hate relationship with Wikipedia. I love its openness and 
democracy, even if that is currently being threatened by small-minded 
uber-volunteers who "guard" pages on certain topics. Wikipedia is a much 
more valuable and interesting encyclopedia than the standard works. It 
entertains--I've enjoyed the entries on pop culture, "jumping the 
shark," and the logical fallacies. It's useful for reference--just a few 
minutes ago I looked up the entry on "ISBN" numbers because I need to 
get a prefix for my new press. Wikipedia can be accurate, but it really 
could use a new form of "authority" to improve more of its content.

For example, take the entry on "anarchism". That entry has evolved into 
a pretty good overview of the topic and has spawned a dozen or so 
supplemental pages. Like all controversial topics, this one has 
generated disagreements, but there is one that has to be resolved by, I 
hate to say this, some form of "authority." The problem involves a small 
group of wingnuts who persist in defacing the entry on "anarchism" with 
sections on "anarcho-capitalism". If you don't understand why this is a 
problem, just think of "anarcho-capitalism" as being an oxymoron, kind 
of like being "half-pregnant" or the existence of a "Jweish pope". 
Anarchism has always opposed capitalism and the state. Capitalism can't 
exist without the state, hence two reasons why "anarcho-capitalism" is 
an oxymoron. I don't have a problem with the existence of a page on 
"anarcho-capitalism," but it offends me that these nuts are trying to 
normalize their nonsense on the page about anarchism.

Of course, regular printed reference materials aren't immune from this 
kind of intellectual sloppiness. Take the second edition of The Oxford 
Companion to Politics of the World edited by Joel Krieger. This weighty 
reference tome includes an entry on "anarchism" written by Robert Paul 
Wolff, who I believe is an American Libertarian. The entry includes a 
few accurate sentences about historical anarchism, but nothing about 
contemporary anarchism and it mixes in American libertarianism as being 
part of anarchism. This is kind of like letting Bill O'Reilly write an 
entry on "liberalism". He would probably get a few things right, but the 
rest of the entry would reflect his own prejudices and agenda.

C.