[Web4lib] Problems with Wikipedia

[Tim Spalding]

Michael,

I think there's a certain disconnect between librarianship and the
thing "after" librarianship. It is the librarians job to get patrons
to the credible information—to, if you will, lead the horse to water.
The patrons do the drinking—the research, analysis, and paper-writing.
("Drinking" is the wrong metaphor, as academic work is—at its best—a
creative, not a receptive act.)

If you consider success at the point where librarianship leaves off,
it would usually be foolish to point people to Wikipedia—a muddy
stream, at best. When you problematize authority, and value
disagreement, commitment and currency Wikipedia—and much of the "wild"
web—looks more interesting. Certainly the ever-changing, hyper-current
and enormously passionate interplay of Wikipedia more closely models
what "really" goes on in academic circles than many a deadening
specialized reference works. That Wikipedia requires intellectual
caution and exceptional critical faculties is a *good* thing, not a
bad.

As an aside: Much of my suspicion of "endorsing known authority"
largely derives from my academic experience in Classics. Classics
pioneered the tools of "source criticism," largely at the expense of
"endorsing known authority." Many incidents in ancient history are
attested by multiple, conflicting accounts. Five named authors and a
gaggle of anonymous ones present different accounts of Alexander's
invasion of Egypt.  "Whom to believe?" scholars once asked. But they
came to ask "WHAT to believe?" understanding that there are no "good
authors," only good information. Not infrequently, the accredited,
authoritative author—Plutarch with his encyclopedic library and nible
pen—provides bum information, and a two-bit hack like Justin, or even
some anonymous source provides the real thing.

When I taught ancient texts (as a TA), my students expected pat
answers on a text's "metadata." Who set up this inscription? Who
authored this text? What was its date? What was its bias? The answer
would be "you've read the text. You now know EVERYTHING I do. All the
evidence is internal. Figure it out yourself." Time and again, I had
to fight against the idea that the answer was external to the
text—that the blurb on the back of a Penguin Classic was anything
other than the results of arguments based on the text itself.

I imagine, from where most of you sit, the techniques of ancient
history seems like an edge case. But it brings up the fundamentals:
biography and authority are an imperfect substitute for critical
evaluation.

Tim

On 1/4/07, Michael McCulley <drweb at san.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Tim,
>
> I happen to still be in the credible author = non-anonymous camp, and while
> another tough issue for Wikipedia, I don't find in the real world (vs.
> academic disciplines and debates) much discredit for author = known
> quantity; that can be skewed, mis-applied, disregarded, or disputed - but,
> it has a chance to be respected, and given "credibility." A known author can
> be part of the quest for Truth. And it depends..
>
> Quote.
>
>     [I]t is not what the man of science believes that distinguishes him, but
> how and why he believes it. His beliefs are tentative, not dogmatic; they
> are based on evidence, not on authority or intuition.
>
> .Unquote
>
> Source: Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (Book-of-the-Month
> Club, 1995), p. 527.
> Online source: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html
>
> I believe you might be confusing argument-from-authority with my poor aim
> for endorsing known authority; I mean a basis for validity and
> trustworthiness, and we respect authority (in the main) in our society and
> civilization, especially deeming valid that authority that comes from our
> known "experts." But, this is one of the common back-and-forth debates the
> Wikipedia folks have with others who don't agree with their system or
> community values.
>
> I can't honestly give credibility to anonymous anything, but maybe that's
> just me.  And, there is no disconnect in my mind between having critical
> thinking *and* respecting known credible authorship and works. They are not
> mutually exclusive, to me.
>
> This is heading (or has been) o.t. for Web4Lib, so feel free to e-mail me
> offlist to discuss further. I highly respect your views insights, and
> knowledge, though with some of the views, I may disagree...
>
> Best,
> Michael
>
> --
> P. Michael McCulley aka DrWeb
> mailto:drweb at san.rr.com
> San Diego, CA
> http://drweb.typepad.com/
>
> Quote of the Moment:
>  It's 11:00pm...do you know what your cats are shredding?
> Thursday, January 04, 2007 7:10:24 PM
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org
> >[mailto:web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org] On Behalf Of Tim Spalding
> >Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 6:03 PM
> >To: web4lib at webjunction.org
> >Subject: Re: [Web4lib] Problems with Wikipedia
> >
> >I do not think Wikipedia should be relied upon in most scholarly
> >contexts. (It's lousy in Classics, that's for sure.) But examine the
> >final paragraph of the Williams College Libraries page:
> >
> >"Without knowing who wrote the article, it is not possible to judge
> >whether the author's writing is worthy of respect, or to critique his
> >or her motivations or qualifications. In short, without a known
> >author, Wikipedia articles cannot be considered authoritative."
> >
> >Is this critical thinking at Williams? Surely the
> >argument-from-authority is as wrong now as it ever was-"Aristotle said
> >it" is no argument at all, and "some English prof said it" is
> >considerably worse. The same goes for the notion that, if you know the
> >author, you can "critique his or her motivations." And why stop at
> >motivations? I hear Prof. McGowan is Welsh-case closed!
> >
> >High school is for looking stuff up and spitting it back-bad high
> >school anyway. After high school, you should go beyond that. When you
> >get down to it *everything* must be suspect. Critical thinking and
> >source criticism have always been basic to academic inquiry. You go to
> >college in part to learn that there are no "authoritative"
> >shortcuts-no royal road to truth and quality, be it collaborative
> >production or Ipse dixit. If your library tells you otherwise, don't
> >believe it.
> >
> >PS: And did they choose postmodernism, with its critique of authority
> >and even knowledge to be funny, or what?
>
>