the authority of Wikipedia
February 23rd, 2007
Opinion
There is a modest bit of controversy over Middlebury College’s History department ban on citing Wikipedia. This statement, here in this blog, has no authority so I suggest the reader do a search using Google, Technorati, or other search engines of their choice and verify the veracity of the first sentence. (Is it a controversy? Is it moderate? Was it really a ban or a recommendation? Did a Middlebury College representative confirm this? Is it possible this is a hoax?)
So what exactly constitutes an “authority”? One definition would simply be the credence that can be given a source. Is the information likely to be accurate without having to further verify it? And on what basis can one make that judgment? Wikipedia is a wonderful source for information but certainly, as with all sources, the user must challenge it. That’s one reason I like Wikipedia. While there may be room for mis- and dis-information, as an open forum the entries can be debated and the discussions reviewed. That’s a lot more than an “authoritative” text often provides, even with extensive footnotes. It provides a basis for allowing some judgment over the accuracy of the information not otherwise available.
From my own experience on authorities; The OR, or the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion (the title of which itself is not entirely unbiased…), is considered the key primary source for Civil War historians. It is a complete collection of field reports, orders, memos, etc. from both the Union and Confederate armies – the official records. Yet in combing through these records for a very specific incident (relating to Pickett’s Charge and the Vermont 16th, 14th, and 13th Regiment) and comparing to themselves and other “anecdotal” writings (Bachelder Papers), there was, not surprisingly, a disparity! Which is the authority? Of course, depending on the purpose and perspective for which each of these “source” documents were created, differences are expected – and both are authorities. This is true with any and all authority.
For example, the “authorities” that missed the intelligence around 911; the authorities that mistook an LED advertising board for a bomb, or the authority of a PhD paleontologist who is also a “young earth creationist”.
Or global warming for example. Michael Crighton’s book “State of Fear” is fairly persuasive that it is all contrived and cites data that doesn’t indicate any climate warming in the last 100 years (Albany, New York for example)(and note that the hyperlink is to a Wikipedia entry on the book… to the extent that I have simply read the book myself, the information appears fair and accurate, and reasonable.). On the other hand, many “scientists” and other “authorities” point to data that supports their “conclusions”. What is the authority? Is it scientific? Is it political? Is it entertainment? Is it oout and out deception? For each scientist that swears the data points to humankind’s catastrophic contribution to the irrefutable fact of global warming, there are others with a more measured counterpoint. So where’s the authority and how does one measure the credibility of one over the other? The fact that each side in a legal dispute can bring its “experts” to say exactly the opposite thing (especially “scientific”expert testimony at a trial) is a fairly sure sign that nothing is written in stone!
The true and final authority is your own mind. The only authority (and it is a bit of a tautology) that I am willing to rely on is that of Descartes:
The first was never to accept anything for true which I did not clearly know to be such; that is to say, carefully to avoid precipitancy and prejudice, and to comprise nothing more in my judgment than what was presented to my mind so clearly and distinctly as to exclude all ground of doubt.
The second, to divide each of the difficulties under examination into as many parts as possible, and as might be necessary for its adequate solution.
The third, to conduct my thoughts in such order that, by commencing with objects the simplest and easiest to know, I might ascend by little and little, and, as it were, step by step, to the knowledge of the more complex; assigning in thought a certain order even to those objects which in their own nature do not stand in a relation of antecedence and sequence.
And the last, in every case to make enumerations so complete, and reviews so general, that I might be assured that nothing was omitted.
This is a direct “copy and paste” from the Gutenberg Project copy of “Discourse on Method”! Compare to the Wikipedia entry under “Discourse on Method”.Draw you own conclusions. (Aside note: authorities, whom and what ever they may,be would do well to heed the first admonition of Descartes and strive to “present to the mind so clearly and distinctly as to exclude all ground of doubt.”)
Comments