Documentary: The Truth According To Wikipedia
DriftingByTheStorm
Posts: 8,684
The Truth According to Wikipedia
is a documentary that attempts to look at both sides of the issue regarding Wikipedia, "truth", and what is and is not a viable model for distributing truth to the masses.
I found this to be a very compelling documentary.
Check it out.
is a documentary that attempts to look at both sides of the issue regarding Wikipedia, "truth", and what is and is not a viable model for distributing truth to the masses.
I found this to be a very compelling documentary.
Check it out.
Write Up of Movie wrote:Google or Wikipedia? Those of us who search online -- and who doesn't? -- are getting referred more and more to Wikipedia. For the past two years, this free online "encyclopedia of the people" has been topping the lists of the world's most popular websites. But do we really know what we're using? Backlight plunges into the story behind Wikipedia and explores the wonderful world of Web 2.0. Is it a revolution, or pure hype?
Director IJsbrand van Veelen goes looking for the truth behind Wikipedia. Only five people are employed by the company, and all its activities are financed by donations and subsidies. The online encyclopedia that everyone can contribute to and revise is now even bigger than the illustrious Encyclopedia Britannica.
Does this spell the end for traditional institutions of knowledge such as Britannica? And should we applaud this development as progress or mourn it as a loss? How reliable is Wikipedia? Do "the people" really hold the lease on wisdom? And since when do we believe that information should be free for all?
In this film, "Wikipedians," the folks who spend their days writing and editing articles, explain how the online encyclopedia works. In addition, the parties involved discuss Wikipedia's ethics and quality of content. It quickly becomes clear that there are camps of both believers and critics.
Wiki's Truth introduces us to the main players in the debate: Jimmy Wales (founder and head Wikipedian), Larry Sanger (co-founder of Wikipedia, now head of Wiki spin-off Citizendium), Andrew Keen (author of The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet Is Killing Our Culture and Assaulting Our Economy), Phoebe Ayers (a Wikipedian in California), Ndesanjo Macha (Swahili Wikipedia, digital activist), Tim O'Reilly (CEO of O'Reilly Media, the "inventor" of Web 2.0), Charles Leadbeater (philosopher and author of We Think, about crowdsourcing), and Robert McHenry (former editor-in-chief of Encyclopedia Britannica). Opening is a video by Chris Pirillo.
The questions surrounding Wikipedia lead to a bigger discussion of Web 2.0, a phenomenon in which the user determines the content. Examples include YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, and Wikipedia. These sites would appear to provide new freedom and opportunities for undiscovered talent and unheard voices, but just where does the boundary lie between expert and amateur? Who will survive according to the laws of this new "digital Darwinism"? Are equality and truth really reconcilable ideals? And most importantly, has the Internet brought us wisdom and truth, or is it high time for a cultural counterrevolution?
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
As long as you know how seriously demented Wiki can be, i think it is an "ok" source, provided you know SOMETHING about the subject. [by this i do NOT mean it is an "ok" research tool, but if you KNOW what you are looking for and just want a quick verification that you haven't lost your mind, i think Wiki has SOME value]
However, as a very quick demonstration of just HOW fucked up Wikipedia can be,
look at their page for The Iran-Contra Affair.
First, note that the very first section is titled, "1. Hostage Taking", IMMEDIATELY trying to bend the thought process of readers to viewing this as a noble reactionary scenario, where America was simply trying to save hostages. SURE it is a partial truth, but it SERIOUSLY DISTRACTS FROM THE FULL TRUTH.
SECOND, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY,
do a "Find on This Page" for "COCAINE", "DRUGS", "ILLEGAL GUNS", or "SERIAL NUMBERS" and you will find that
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FOOTNOTES (in otherwords, the REFERENCES contain these words) THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE FACT THAT THIS ENTIRE AFFAIR WAS CENTERED AROUND THE CIA'S IMPORTATION OF COCAINE IN EXCHANGE FOR ILLEGALY MANUFACTURED (without the Federally required serial number) WEAPONS TO TRADE TO GUERILLA FORCES.
I would say that is an EXTREMELY IMPORTANT OMISSION.
Also, you can look over the ENTIRE article and find NO MENTION of the fact that this entire affair was a DIRECT SUBVERSION OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER.
Seriously, NO WHERE do they bother to mention that Congress said NO, and the executive just said "go fuck yourself".
Its INCREDIBLE.
So that is just an illustrative example of how amazingly complete the Military Industrial Complex's control over "free" information really is.
The CIA's involvement in the COCAINE trade, as related to Iran-Contra, is COMMON KNOWLEDGE!
Yet the Wikipedia page somehow "forgot" to mention this?
???
:roll:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
That's why I use wikipedia... the footnotes usually give at least a jumping off point for further research, and for that, it's handy.
The only critique I read of wiki said it's basically no more or less accurate than any other encyclopedia. You're always going to have problems like that though... does encyclopedia britannica cover the CIA's involvement in cocaine as part of its entry on the Iran-Contra affair?