On Truth and Democratic Choice - Reflections on the article “Why You Can't Cite Wikipedia in My Class”
Cross-post from my technical blog blogs.technet.com/eldar/archive/2007/12/20/2650404.aspx
- In the September issue of Communications of ACM, my attention was drawn to the article "Why you can't cite Wikipedia in my class." Its author, Neil Waters, is a history teacher and has forbidden quoting Wikipedia as a source in his class, for which supporters of open source, democracy and free speech have fallen quite maliciously. Up to the raids in newspapers, on the radio and even on the NBC evening news.
This article attracted my attention for two reasons. Firstly, the author actually has a completely legitimate point of view, why one should not rely too much on Wikipedia. And secondly, the story of the visits to it perfectly illustrates the second reason, because of which the authority of Wikipedia in my eyes is not so high. Let's look at both reasons in order.
So, the point of view of the author. As a history teacher, he led the “History of Early Japan” class, and in the final exams several students (half a dozen) independently stated, and in the same terms, that the Confucian thinker Oguu Sorai opposed the Tokugawa regime, clearly confusing the samurai with the lower classes of Japanese society. That, according to the author (I myself am not an expert in Japanese history), is a complete nonsense for anyone at least somewhat familiar with the social structure of Japan in those times.
')
The reason for this nonsense in such a popular source according to the author is that the articles that do not attract much attention do not attract the attention of those who are able to edit them professionally. And the distribution of the popularity of articles is normal, that is, few articles collect the main attention, the group is bigger - this way, and the overwhelming majority is visited as the overwhelming number of sites on the Internet - a couple of times a year, not counting the author and the search engines. Accordingly, the overwhelming number of articles in Wikipedia does not receive enough attention from qualified editors and can contain any nonsense, if only it does not catch the eye of a layman.
Actually, it sounds convincing, right? But the author casually mentions another reason, although he does not give the topic of development. He recalls the popular television show “Family Enmity,” in which participants had to guess not the correct answer, but the answer, which the studio would mostly choose.
The fact is that editing wikipedia articles is a purely democratic process. Democracy may not be so bad in politics, but can it be used in the search for truth? Let me give you a few achievements of the democratic method over the past three thousand years:
• In Athens, the democratic majority demanded that Socrates commit suicide. Somewhat later, the Athenian democratic majority put admirals over their fleet, who lost the war to Sparta ineptly, thereby throwing all Greece into chaos up to the era of Alexander the Great.
• In Rome, there has never been a democracy, “res public” clearly limited who is “public” and who in general is nobody and nothing. But even within this limited democracy, Roman political life was more like a terrarium than an ideal state.
• In 1933, the democratic majority in Germany elected Hitler.
• In 1991, the democratic majority in Russia elected Yeltsin.
• In 2004, a democratic majority in the United States elected you-know-who. I don’t say about 2000, suffice it to say that in 2004, the sticker on the rear bumper of the car “Let's not choose it again” was popular in Seattle, but nevertheless in 2004 it seemed to be actually chosen.
The last example is good for demonstrating what a bad democratic choice is for establishing the truth. In fact, the choice of the American people was, but what? John Kerry was a graduate of the same university as Bush, a member of the same fraternity, and lopatal something about bjaka-Hussein and the continuation of the war in Iraq, criticizing Bush only because he leads it ineptly. As a solution, he once offered to introduce a general military appeal. Here is such a choice ... By the way, there is a theory that the Democrats simply did not dare to take responsibility for clearing the porridge, which the Republicans pushed the country into. But whatever the cause, the result is still so-so. It would seem, out of almost three hundred million US citizens, there was no one who would have been better than the choice made? Of course it was, and a lot. But they didn’t hit the jet, and the people were faced with a choice of two evils.
The reason for this is not only in politics, but also in some fundamental information laws of the functioning of human society. The fact is that the “pipe” according to which the opinion of the population flows into the decisions of the authorities is very narrow. More precisely, sharply tapering towards the end. This is not even a pipe, but a kind of funnel with a very narrow spout. The one who controls the bottleneck of the pipe controls the whole society. And nothing can be done with this, it is not a property of a specific social structure, it is a property of this specific information channel.
Now I will say one thing, you just do not swear at once, okay? Yes, yes, I know, blasphemy and heresy, but let's try anyway ... So, as a result of the narrowness of this pipe, true democracy, as the majority of the world's population thinks of it, as “the power of the people”, such a democracy simply does not exist in nature. And not because it has not yet been built, but because it contradicts the fundamental information laws of the functioning of human society. As the speed of light can not be exceeded not from the fact that there has not yet been a sufficiently brainless swirler, but from the fact that it really does not exceed. Any democracy in essence is always - always - an oligarchy, that is, the hidden power of a small group of people.
In the most developed democracies, people can periodically cast aside the groups of oligarchs who control them. This avoids the accumulation of systematic management errors that occur if the same group of oligarchs, for example, the fuel and energy complex, rules for too long. And this, of course, is better than an authoritarian society, where the pipe is generally blocked. But only.
In particular, this is expressed in the fact that when an opposition is allowed in a closed society, not many points of view actually move forward, but essentially one, “Another Point of View”, which is far more aggressive to other opinions than even the ruling party . Moreover, if such an opposition comes to power, the case often ends in even tougher and more bloody measures than those used by the previous regime. The great French bourgeois and Great October Socialist are the clearest examples of this. Another example is perestroika in the USSR, where the thunderers of the collapsed empire won and organized famine and poverty in the richest country in the world. When I encounter liberals in the forums about this, they start screaming in this place that there was no other choice. If you think so, check your sight - you did not notice China on the world map, where it was done in a completely different way. There is always a theoretical choice, only the people do not give it. Neither the government nor the opposition. The choice of the people is not the choice of truth against falsehood, it is the choice of Pepsi instead of Koki.
Which, by the way, leads us to the field of knowledge, where the laws I have mentioned are no longer known for one decade, namely marketing. In marketing and positioning it is known that in any category of goods you need to be number one or number two. Bolivar does not tolerate three consumer demand, the third always loses, and the market is divided between the first two. Cola or Pepsi. There are many examples. Beer in Petersburg - Baltic or Stepan Razin. Operating system for techies - Windows or Linux, for consumers - Windows or Mac. Bookstore in America - Barnes & Noble or Borders. The reason is essentially the same - the narrowness of the information pipe, the natural limitations of the public consciousness.
It would seem that the bottleneck is the consciousness of the consumer, and not the path to it. But this is not true, the path is narrow. There are many consumers, why can not some have one and others have others, third and fourth pairs? But no, the pair in each category is exactly one. Tested in practice. And the reason is the same, why in America one has to choose between Republicans and Democrats, in Britain between Tories and Vigi, and in Russia between Edrom and it is not clear by whom. Actually, elections are also positioning and marketing.
And now, you can finally return to Wikipedia and the search for truth in a democratic way. Now you understand what I mean? That wikipedia is not at all true. This is Pepsi instead of coca. Well, plus more free, which is certainly very nice. I have repeatedly seen when articles on Wikipedia are aggressively edited by the victorious opposition, while completely destroying the alternative point of view.
Is there an example? For example, there is the so-called “theory of the Third Rome”, which claims that Russia is the successor of the Roman Empire and Byzantium. You can, of course, scream that this point of view is “anti-scientific” and all that jazz, but what is interesting is that in Wikipedia it is stated only in the form of its criticism. There is no clear consistent presentation of the point of view of the supporters of this theory, even with the explanation that the editors disagree with it. At least it was not when I checked the last time. The article was, but in it - I suspect that deliberately - some splint was put up as a theory and then successfully criticized. It's like, ok?
In general, the presentation of the point of view of the opponent only in the form of its criticism in science happens, but usually it smells bad. Two examples:
• The works of the Egyptian historian Manetho, who, by the way, unlike his Greek colleagues, have never been caught in a lie, are known only in quotations, where his works are criticized by other historians.
• The Greek philosopher Plato and his students, so respected in modern civilization, bought and burned the works of their ideological opponents Democritus, whose works as a result are also known mainly for his criticism of Plato's school.
This is the very second reason why I am skeptical about Wikipedia. Each topic covering a related group of articles in Wikipedia, as a result of the processes described above, is captured by one group or another, which very often does not allow alternative points of view. So no democracy here and does not smell. As a result, in general, Wikipedia does not reflect the truth at all, but only the opinion of the most aggressive, those who have time to fight for its pages. Which, by the way, says about their employment in other areas of life.
Does this mean that you can not use Wikipedia? By no means. I use it a lot. But we must remember that this is not an authoritative source, not the ultimate truth, not to forget the good old principle "trust, but verify." In a sense, this is the Internet equivalent of the all-powerful Russian OBS - “one woman said,” and requires caution. And the humanity must also develop an attitude towards this source, which will allow it to be used effectively, but at the same time it will include this very caution, which so far most people lack.
References:
1. Neil L. Waters - Communications of ACM, September 2007 / Vol. 50, No. 9, p.15-17
2. Can history be open source? by R. Rosenzweig, R. - Journal of American History, 93, 1 (June 2006), p.117-146
3. Ogyu Sorai Philosophical Masterworks by J. Tucker (editor and translator) - Honolulu, 2006, 12–13, 48–51: “Tokugawa legitimacy, Tokugawa shogunate
- In the September issue of Communications of ACM, my attention was drawn to the article "Why you can't cite Wikipedia in my class." Its author, Neil Waters, is a history teacher and has forbidden quoting Wikipedia as a source in his class, for which supporters of open source, democracy and free speech have fallen quite maliciously. Up to the raids in newspapers, on the radio and even on the NBC evening news.
This article attracted my attention for two reasons. Firstly, the author actually has a completely legitimate point of view, why one should not rely too much on Wikipedia. And secondly, the story of the visits to it perfectly illustrates the second reason, because of which the authority of Wikipedia in my eyes is not so high. Let's look at both reasons in order.
So, the point of view of the author. As a history teacher, he led the “History of Early Japan” class, and in the final exams several students (half a dozen) independently stated, and in the same terms, that the Confucian thinker Oguu Sorai opposed the Tokugawa regime, clearly confusing the samurai with the lower classes of Japanese society. That, according to the author (I myself am not an expert in Japanese history), is a complete nonsense for anyone at least somewhat familiar with the social structure of Japan in those times.
')
The reason for this nonsense in such a popular source according to the author is that the articles that do not attract much attention do not attract the attention of those who are able to edit them professionally. And the distribution of the popularity of articles is normal, that is, few articles collect the main attention, the group is bigger - this way, and the overwhelming majority is visited as the overwhelming number of sites on the Internet - a couple of times a year, not counting the author and the search engines. Accordingly, the overwhelming number of articles in Wikipedia does not receive enough attention from qualified editors and can contain any nonsense, if only it does not catch the eye of a layman.
Actually, it sounds convincing, right? But the author casually mentions another reason, although he does not give the topic of development. He recalls the popular television show “Family Enmity,” in which participants had to guess not the correct answer, but the answer, which the studio would mostly choose.
The fact is that editing wikipedia articles is a purely democratic process. Democracy may not be so bad in politics, but can it be used in the search for truth? Let me give you a few achievements of the democratic method over the past three thousand years:
• In Athens, the democratic majority demanded that Socrates commit suicide. Somewhat later, the Athenian democratic majority put admirals over their fleet, who lost the war to Sparta ineptly, thereby throwing all Greece into chaos up to the era of Alexander the Great.
• In Rome, there has never been a democracy, “res public” clearly limited who is “public” and who in general is nobody and nothing. But even within this limited democracy, Roman political life was more like a terrarium than an ideal state.
• In 1933, the democratic majority in Germany elected Hitler.
• In 1991, the democratic majority in Russia elected Yeltsin.
• In 2004, a democratic majority in the United States elected you-know-who. I don’t say about 2000, suffice it to say that in 2004, the sticker on the rear bumper of the car “Let's not choose it again” was popular in Seattle, but nevertheless in 2004 it seemed to be actually chosen.
The last example is good for demonstrating what a bad democratic choice is for establishing the truth. In fact, the choice of the American people was, but what? John Kerry was a graduate of the same university as Bush, a member of the same fraternity, and lopatal something about bjaka-Hussein and the continuation of the war in Iraq, criticizing Bush only because he leads it ineptly. As a solution, he once offered to introduce a general military appeal. Here is such a choice ... By the way, there is a theory that the Democrats simply did not dare to take responsibility for clearing the porridge, which the Republicans pushed the country into. But whatever the cause, the result is still so-so. It would seem, out of almost three hundred million US citizens, there was no one who would have been better than the choice made? Of course it was, and a lot. But they didn’t hit the jet, and the people were faced with a choice of two evils.
The reason for this is not only in politics, but also in some fundamental information laws of the functioning of human society. The fact is that the “pipe” according to which the opinion of the population flows into the decisions of the authorities is very narrow. More precisely, sharply tapering towards the end. This is not even a pipe, but a kind of funnel with a very narrow spout. The one who controls the bottleneck of the pipe controls the whole society. And nothing can be done with this, it is not a property of a specific social structure, it is a property of this specific information channel.
Now I will say one thing, you just do not swear at once, okay? Yes, yes, I know, blasphemy and heresy, but let's try anyway ... So, as a result of the narrowness of this pipe, true democracy, as the majority of the world's population thinks of it, as “the power of the people”, such a democracy simply does not exist in nature. And not because it has not yet been built, but because it contradicts the fundamental information laws of the functioning of human society. As the speed of light can not be exceeded not from the fact that there has not yet been a sufficiently brainless swirler, but from the fact that it really does not exceed. Any democracy in essence is always - always - an oligarchy, that is, the hidden power of a small group of people.
In the most developed democracies, people can periodically cast aside the groups of oligarchs who control them. This avoids the accumulation of systematic management errors that occur if the same group of oligarchs, for example, the fuel and energy complex, rules for too long. And this, of course, is better than an authoritarian society, where the pipe is generally blocked. But only.
In particular, this is expressed in the fact that when an opposition is allowed in a closed society, not many points of view actually move forward, but essentially one, “Another Point of View”, which is far more aggressive to other opinions than even the ruling party . Moreover, if such an opposition comes to power, the case often ends in even tougher and more bloody measures than those used by the previous regime. The great French bourgeois and Great October Socialist are the clearest examples of this. Another example is perestroika in the USSR, where the thunderers of the collapsed empire won and organized famine and poverty in the richest country in the world. When I encounter liberals in the forums about this, they start screaming in this place that there was no other choice. If you think so, check your sight - you did not notice China on the world map, where it was done in a completely different way. There is always a theoretical choice, only the people do not give it. Neither the government nor the opposition. The choice of the people is not the choice of truth against falsehood, it is the choice of Pepsi instead of Koki.
Which, by the way, leads us to the field of knowledge, where the laws I have mentioned are no longer known for one decade, namely marketing. In marketing and positioning it is known that in any category of goods you need to be number one or number two. Bolivar does not tolerate three consumer demand, the third always loses, and the market is divided between the first two. Cola or Pepsi. There are many examples. Beer in Petersburg - Baltic or Stepan Razin. Operating system for techies - Windows or Linux, for consumers - Windows or Mac. Bookstore in America - Barnes & Noble or Borders. The reason is essentially the same - the narrowness of the information pipe, the natural limitations of the public consciousness.
It would seem that the bottleneck is the consciousness of the consumer, and not the path to it. But this is not true, the path is narrow. There are many consumers, why can not some have one and others have others, third and fourth pairs? But no, the pair in each category is exactly one. Tested in practice. And the reason is the same, why in America one has to choose between Republicans and Democrats, in Britain between Tories and Vigi, and in Russia between Edrom and it is not clear by whom. Actually, elections are also positioning and marketing.
And now, you can finally return to Wikipedia and the search for truth in a democratic way. Now you understand what I mean? That wikipedia is not at all true. This is Pepsi instead of coca. Well, plus more free, which is certainly very nice. I have repeatedly seen when articles on Wikipedia are aggressively edited by the victorious opposition, while completely destroying the alternative point of view.
Is there an example? For example, there is the so-called “theory of the Third Rome”, which claims that Russia is the successor of the Roman Empire and Byzantium. You can, of course, scream that this point of view is “anti-scientific” and all that jazz, but what is interesting is that in Wikipedia it is stated only in the form of its criticism. There is no clear consistent presentation of the point of view of the supporters of this theory, even with the explanation that the editors disagree with it. At least it was not when I checked the last time. The article was, but in it - I suspect that deliberately - some splint was put up as a theory and then successfully criticized. It's like, ok?
In general, the presentation of the point of view of the opponent only in the form of its criticism in science happens, but usually it smells bad. Two examples:
• The works of the Egyptian historian Manetho, who, by the way, unlike his Greek colleagues, have never been caught in a lie, are known only in quotations, where his works are criticized by other historians.
• The Greek philosopher Plato and his students, so respected in modern civilization, bought and burned the works of their ideological opponents Democritus, whose works as a result are also known mainly for his criticism of Plato's school.
This is the very second reason why I am skeptical about Wikipedia. Each topic covering a related group of articles in Wikipedia, as a result of the processes described above, is captured by one group or another, which very often does not allow alternative points of view. So no democracy here and does not smell. As a result, in general, Wikipedia does not reflect the truth at all, but only the opinion of the most aggressive, those who have time to fight for its pages. Which, by the way, says about their employment in other areas of life.
Does this mean that you can not use Wikipedia? By no means. I use it a lot. But we must remember that this is not an authoritative source, not the ultimate truth, not to forget the good old principle "trust, but verify." In a sense, this is the Internet equivalent of the all-powerful Russian OBS - “one woman said,” and requires caution. And the humanity must also develop an attitude towards this source, which will allow it to be used effectively, but at the same time it will include this very caution, which so far most people lack.
References:
1. Neil L. Waters - Communications of ACM, September 2007 / Vol. 50, No. 9, p.15-17
2. Can history be open source? by R. Rosenzweig, R. - Journal of American History, 93, 1 (June 2006), p.117-146
3. Ogyu Sorai Philosophical Masterworks by J. Tucker (editor and translator) - Honolulu, 2006, 12–13, 48–51: “Tokugawa legitimacy, Tokugawa shogunate
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/17779/
All Articles