Wikepedia

Wed Nov 1 08:00:43 UTC 2006

Robert, I do not really find this entry SO MUCH objectionable, I just
encountered it once and tried to edit it a little. I attempted to underscore
some dissimilarities between the Soviet and the Nazi policies that this
entry (at least in its version a month ago) made to look very similar. For
example, the treatment of civilians on the occupied territories or overall
political objectives of the two leaderships before 1941. But, anyway, the
fact that my changes were abolished several hours later made me realize that
Wikipedia is not "shared" or "common" knowledge; it is the knowledge of
someone anonymous who either has power (Big Brother version) or just
happened to be the last one to click the "Enter" key. This process, by the
way, is easy to make automatic -- you can just install very simple software
that would regularly check for changes in the selected entries and restore
the original texts. Not that I can think of any improvements to the project
-- probably it is just impossible to automatically create a text reflecting
common wisdom or shared knowledge, especially in subjects like history. So,
I prefer a regular authored (collectively or individually) text to anonymous
Wikipedia. Too many people do not, though -- when you Google something,
Wikipedia article often shows up first. I am afraid that this popularity,
along with the mythology of "objective" or "shared" knowledge, makes it a
huge resource for mass consciousness manipulation, at least potentially.

Thank you for the reference to Jonathan Brunstedt's article, it is very
interesting.

Best wishes,
Andrey

-----Original Message-----
From: Slavic & East European Languages and Literature list
[mailto:SEELANGS at LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU] On Behalf Of Robert Chandler
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 2:12 AM
To: SEELANGS at LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
Subject: Re: [SEELANGS] Wikepedia

Thank you, Andrey, what you say about trying to make changes is interesting.
But can you say at least a few words about what you find so objectionable in
this entry?  I have only  had time to glance at it very briefly indeed
myself.

Best wishes,

Robert

> I totally agree that a lot of printed materials are filled with bias and
> plain factual inaccuracies/mistakes/lies. However, I think there is a
> difference between a history book by a concrete author with whom you can
> disagree and engage in a discussion and who has his scholarly reputation
at
> stake to prevent him or her from lying, and an anonymous on-line article.
Of
> course, if critical thinking is applied to a Wikipedia entry just as it
> should to an expressed opinion of someone obscure individual you never
heard
> about, it is just fine; I often feel, however, that Wikipedia is referred
to
> as THE source of objective information, the expression of collective
wisdom,
> shared knowledge etc, that is, something having more authority than a
> writing of a concrete individual, let alone an anonymous one.
> 
> As to the idea of changing something in Wikipedia myself, it is not at all
> that simple. I tried editing "Great Patriotic War" entry. My changes
> reflected on the screen on the day I made them; however, the next day the
> entry looked exactly as it did before I edited it. I do not know how it
> works -- whether there is some Big Brother secretly monitoring the site,
or
> just an individual who likes the entry as it is and re-edits it every time
> someone makes changes -- at any rate, this blindfolded process is not a
> scholarly discussion, neither is it a process thereby some existing public
> or scholarly consensus gets reflected in the entry that we can read.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Slavic & East European Languages and Literature list
> [mailto:SEELANGS at LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU] On Behalf Of Josh Wilson
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 12:53 AM
> To: SEELANGS at LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
> Subject: Re: [SEELANGS] Wikepedia
> 
> I would also add that inaccuracies or biased statements in Wikipedia are
not
> proof that it should not be used. If you've ever read anything by Daniel
> Goldhagen, for instance, you'll know that a lot of printed histories are
> filled with biases. (However, I have read much of his work as his biases
are
> interesting and good for debate.)
> 
> On another thought, accuracy in history can change overtime:
> http://www.sras.org/news2.phtml?m=768
> 
> In short, it's not that the Internet is unreliable, but that it's simply
> much more important now that it is much easier to publish material to not
> believe everything you read. So I hope that all the educators on this list
> are doing all they can not only teach language and literature, but also to
> teach critical thinking skills.
> 
> IMHO, 
> 
> JW
> 
> PS. Also, if you don't like Wikipedia, you may join Wikipedia and change
it.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Slavic & East European Languages and Literature list
> [mailto:SEELANGS at listserv.cuny.edu] On Behalf Of Alina Israeli
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 3:36 AM
> To: SEELANGS at listserv.cuny.edu
> Subject: Re: [SEELANGS] Wikepedia
> 
>> Yes, science and technology sections in Wikipedia (which Nature your
quote
>> refers to) are usually quite good -- there are a lot more experts around
to
>> check for accuracy and there are no particular stakes in misinforming the
>> public about the structure of DNA or the engines used in 1949 Fords, for
>> example. History is a very different matter...
> 
> If you don't like the Wikipedia article on "Great Patriotic War" (or
> anything else for that matter), you can click on the left hand side
> for another language and get a completely different article in
> Russian 
>
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%
>
9E%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%
> D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9%D0%BD%D0%B0
> 
> or in German 
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronologie_Zweiter_Weltkrieg (in fact
> two German versions
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gro%C3%9Fer_Vaterl%C3%A4ndischer_Krieg)
> 
> or in French http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op%C3%A9ration_Barbarossa
> 
> or in a number of other languages. These are not translations, for
> some articles I compared Russian, English and French and had ample
> opportunity to observe differences.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                    http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                    http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------