Wikipedia and the Meaning of Truth

[Michael]

I found this article so intersting that I just have to excerpt the key elements for all those who may not have the time or inclination to read the whole article. :)

Many people, especially academic experts, have argued that Wikipedia's articles can't be trusted, because they are written and edited by volunteers who have never been vetted. Nevertheless, studies have found that the articles are remarkably accurate. The reason is that Wikipedia's community of more than seven million registered users has organically evolved a set of policies and procedures for removing untruths. This also explains Wikipedia's explosive growth: if the stuff in Wikipedia didn't seem "true enough" to most readers, they wouldn't keep coming back to the website.

These policies have become the social contract for Wikipedia's army of apparently insomniac volunteers. Thanks to them, incorrect information generally disappears quite quickly.

So how do the Wikipedians decide what's true and what's not? On what is their epistemology based?

Unlike the laws of mathematics or science, wikitruth isn't based on principles such as consistency or observa*bility. It's not even based on common sense or firsthand experience. Wikipedia has evolved a radically different set of epistemological standards--standards that aren't especially surprising given that the site is rooted in a Web-based community, but that should concern those of us who are interested in traditional notions of truth and accuracy. On Wikipedia, objective truth isn't all that important, actually. What makes a fact or statement fit for inclusion is that it appeared in some other publication--ideally, one that is in English and is available free online. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth," states Wikipedia's official policy on the subject.

Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; it was codified back in August 2003. The two others are "no original research" (December 2003) and "neutral point of view,"
...

In a May 2006 essay on the technology and culture website Edge.org, futurist Jaron Lanier called Wikipedia an example of "digital Maoism"--the closest humanity has come to a functioning mob rule.

Lanier was moved to write about Wikipedia because someone kept editing his Wikipedia entry to say that he was a film director. Lanier describes himself as a "computer scientist, composer, visual artist, and author." He is good at all those things, but he is no director. According to his essay, he made one short experimental film in the 1990s, and it was "awful."
...

Since Lanier's attempted edits to his own Wikipedia entry were based on firsthand knowledge of his own career, he was in direct violation of Wikipedia's three core policies. He has a point of view; he was writing on the basis of his own original research; and what he wrote couldn't be verified by following a link to some kind of legitimate, authoritative, and verifiable publication.
...

So what is Truth? According to Wikipedia's entry on the subject, "the term has no single definition about which the majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree." But in practice, Wikipedia's standard for inclusion has become its de facto standard for truth, and since Wikipedia is the most widely read online reference on the planet, it's the standard of truth that most people are implicitly using when they type a search term into Google or Yahoo. On Wikipedia, truth is received truth: the consensus view of a subject.

That standard is simple: something is true if it was published in a newspaper article, a magazine or journal, or a book published by a university press--or if it appeared on Dr. Who.

Wikipedia and the Meaning of Truth (http://www.technologyreview.com/web/21558/?a=f)

I'm not sure what I find more interesting here - the 'operational' definition of wiki-truth or the assertion that Wiki is mob-rule (true democracy). :D

With respect to this definition of wiki-truth, the danger is the growing massively large scale cultural influence and inherently 'conservative' character in respect to the treating of social and political issues. Reality may have a 'liberal bias', but 'reality' tends to change over time - defined by the present times - and future times may be defined by a wiki-trained culture. And that 'future reality' will likely be a conservative and/or increasingly anti-intellectual environment.

With respect to the assertion that Wiki is mob-rule, I find that doubly interesting as it (potentially) provides a model of actual democratic anarchism in operation that can be analyzed and potentially learnt from.

So many ideas here. I'm interested in what others here have to say about these concepts. :)

[bug]

Does that mean when it was popular belief you could cure disease with leeches, it actually worked? Or that in 1400, if you sailed west from Europe, you'd wind up in India? A collective consensus on truth doesn't leave much room for fun with discovery and progress. I suppose it's wise, though, to make sure you have some information pointing contrary to public accepted opinion before you start spouting some conspiracy theory. For instance, if you gather from other's reactions and comments that you are the only one who can see your best friend Skippy, this could be your clue that you're insane.

[drgoodtrips]

Does that mean when it was popular belief you could cure disease with leeches, it actually worked? Or that in 1400, if you sailed west from Europe, you'd wind up in India? A collective consensus on truth doesn't leave much room for fun with discovery and progress. I suppose it's wise, though, to make sure you have some information pointing contrary to public accepted opinion before you start spouting some conspiracy theory. For instance, if you gather from other's reactions and comments that you are the only one who can see your best friend Skippy, this could be your clue that you're insane.

Or that Skippy has a magical invisibility cloak at his disposal that you should probably ask him about (preferably in front of a lot of people - for example, on the subway).

[bug]

Giggle!!!!

[Michael]

Does that mean when it was popular belief you could cure disease with leeches, it actually worked?
There are a couple of known diseases to this day that can be well treated with that technique.

And yes, there is something to the idea that medicine tends to work best when you all believe it will work. I don't believe the technique applies outside of medicine though. ;)

Or that in 1400, if you sailed west from Europe, you'd wind up in India? A collective consensus on truth doesn't leave much room for fun with discovery and progress. I suppose it's wise, though, to make sure you have some information pointing contrary to public accepted opinion before you start spouting some conspiracy theory. For instance, if you gather from other's reactions and comments that you are the only one who can see your best friend Skippy, this could be your clue that you're insane.
Or the other people are culturally trained to ignore Skippy.

[bug]

Aw snap!! Is there a smiley for thinking outside of the box?

[SMadsen]

Excellent thread topic
With respect to the assertion that Wiki is mob-rule, I find that doubly interesting as it (potentially) provides a model of actual democratic anarchism in operation that can be analyzed and potentially learnt from.
It's pleasing to see the reservation you make with the word "potentially" :)

A collective consensus on truth doesn't leave much room for fun with discovery and progress.
I dunno. There's just as much room to try and discredit collective consensus as there's always been. Intellectual room, that is, - not necessarily room from a socio-political perspective. In fact, one might argue that Wikipedia adds to the size of that room (this time including the socio-political aspect). 'Wikitruth' to the masses by the masses and all that.


Anyhow, I've always found the most important criterion of "truth" to be that of verifiability. The "danger", I think, is therefore not so much that something is untrue as long as it's verifiable but that something is expoused as truth for the very reason that the author of the article also mentions with a bit of sound sarcastic distance to: That something "is true if it was published" somewhere else.

[Michael]

Excellent thread topic

It's pleasing to see the reservation you make with the word "potentially" :)

Wiki is still but a child and a 'phenomena'. It is not yet a proven process that can stand the test of time. Once it proves that it can survive over time, then Wiki process may provide something to learn from. Wiki could well be just a novelty or fad forgotten ten years from now - just like Archie and Gopher (these are internet 'telnet' search heirarchies from back before the WWW came along). In their day, they were the most AMAZING and useful things.

I dunno. There's just as much room to try and discredit collective consensus as there's always been. Intellectual room, that is, - not necessarily room from a socio-political perspective. In fact, one might argue that Wikipedia adds to the size of that room (this time including the socio-political aspect). 'Wikitruth' to the masses by the masses and all that.

Anyhow, I've always found the most important criterion of "truth" to be that of verifiability. The "danger", I think, is therefore not so much that something is untrue as long as it's verifiable but that something is expoused as truth for the very reason that the author of the article also mentions with a bit of sound sarcastic distance to: That something "is true if it was published" somewhere else.
The key epistemological 'problem' with Wiki-truth is what to do down the road after Wiki is all filled up with information and then some newer (or more correct) information comes available on an existing topic? That is where Wiki-truth process may potentially stand as a barrier. New sources aren't as respectable as 'older sources'. This is the 'conservative' bias one always encounters with institutional structures of knowledge. Wiki is new so that this isn't much of an issue yet - but ten years from now it likely will be.