For a long time I would have agreed that Wikipedia was great for society because it allowed people to contribute to each other’s knowledge on pretty much everything. I’ve been getting info from Wikipedia for a while (I remember it had 300,000 articles when I first saw it) and now it has about 3.5 million articles. But does user-contribution also mean infinite potential for “spin”?
What I’m thinking of specifically is the Classical Left-Right Spectrum page. It used to say the “political center” was socially liberal, economically capitalist and it included libertarianism. Now it says “economically pragmatic” and libertarianism is gone from the spectrum. Free market ideology has been coupled with social conservatism on the center-right. And Hayekian liberalism was listed as “socially conservative.” Paleoconservatism (a relatively centrist belief) is now as far from centrism as socialism and left-wing nationalism. When I try to correct these they get changed back. Same thing happened when I changed The Tea Party Movement from “conservative/libertarian” to “conservative/constitutionalist” because it is not, by definition, libertarian.
What will happen if the truth gets obscured by Wikipedia? Revisionist history is dangerous and I don’t want to see it happen. And how can this be fixed in correlation with free market ideology because I don’t see a way, even through competition. Note that Wikipedia is the 7th most popular website in the world and 13% of internet users use Wikipedia on a typical day.
Wikipedia (along with most other media) largely espouses a socialist worldview. People and ideas that go against socialist dogma are generally labelled ‘controversial’ in an attempt to suggest they are fringe and therefore incorrect. The socialist censors on Wikipedia do not always succeed, however: recently a user who constantly deleted anything that questioned AGW was banned from Wikipedia for 6 months. So there is some sense of objectivity on Wikipedia but on ‘controversial’ issues, the leftist view will always be outlined in detail.
Andrew, the writers of history influence people’s worldview very much. There is almost a consensus opinion amongst people that the Civil War, the creation of the Federal Reserve, the New Deal, the “Great Society” and various other things were absolutely necessary because history taught in schools gives no alternative opinions. People think of Warren G. Harding as a horrible President but when you ask them why they respond with “. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .” because they are given opinions with no substantial rationale via history textbooks. People think of Abraham Lincoln as a great President because he “freed the slaves” but they don’t even dare ask “at what cost?” or “were there other options?” because they were taught was “Lincoln made the tough, but necessary decision to go to war in order to end Slavery” even though that commonly held perception is riddled with opinion. There are thousands of years of history that we have no way of understanding except through (a.) teaching and (b.) studying. And let’s face it, people don’t like option (b.) very much.
I’d also like to note that by revisionist history I mean anything that erases the need for interpretation where interpretation is necessary. To elaborate on history is a good thing. All facts and evidences should be present in any good historical account.
Are they still holding their pitchforks? But seriously, this is pure speculation but I don’t believe that all of the people at the ADL are actually historians. They are just people who hate haters which is perfectly fine to me.
‘Andrew, the writers of history influence people’s worldview very much’
That is why I like the Samuel Butler quote:‘God cannot change the past, though historians can’
‘There are thousands of years of history that we have no way of understanding except through (a.) teaching and (b.) studying. And let’s face it, people don’t like option (b.) very much.’
Well its all opportunity cost but you really haven’t addressed why revisionist history is bad. In fact your previous sentences seem to indicate that revisionist history is necessary in order to combat fraudulent accounts.
‘I’d also like to note that by revisionist history I mean anything that erases the need for interpretation where interpretation is necessary. To elaborate on history is a good thing. All facts and evidences should be present in any good historical account.’
Well that’s not revisionist history, that is just being a crappy historian.
Why is revisionist history bad? Well, it’s altering the truth. Usually to promote an agenda. I don’t mean to assume you’ve read 1984, but if you have it’s a useful example of why revisionist history is bad. And that quote you posted is much like a theme in 1984. Those who control the past, control the future. Knowing only one side of the story will obviously lead to a general bias for that side. Another quote that comes to mind is “the winners write history.”
it’s done to distort perceptions toward whatever reality the historian sees as desirable.
This is history. All history that we have ever known. History is not objective, never has been, and never will be.
Events, people, places… those are all objective facts, but none of those is history. History is a selection of some of those things put together to tell a story of what the historian beleive happened.
This is why there are different accounts of the Civil War, American Revolution, Colonialism, etc. It depends on who is telling the history.
The truth is that history is not the truth, it is not written in stone, it changes with time. You would be well served to take all history you read with a grain of salt.
Did you look at the discussions for the page? Normally, when a change is submitted and/or made, there is some explanation as to the reason(s) for the change. The discussion section allows for debate about the change, as well as the amplifying/clarifying of the change(s) submitted.
I see no reason to believe that people editing Wikipedia’s political pages base their editing on investigation. There’s nothing that causes more irrational thinking, in my opinion, than politics. People just seem to want to win. When people edit political aspects of historical pages they will likely lean it in favor of their own viewpoint. Whether or not the former explanation was 100% accurate (which I don’t believe is ever the case), is irrelevant if the one “improving” upon the historical record is doing so for personal reasons without regard to finding the truth. I’m not worried about people investigating and finding out the truth. That is precisely what I want. I know very few people with any knowledge (although like you suggested, knowledge is not an absolute way to describe it) of history beyond what is in textbooks and their own suppositions. People don’t tend to investigate something they think is of no relevance to them. Do people think mice like cheese? Yes. Do they? No. It doesn’t take much research to figure this out. But why doesn’t everyone know it? They don’t care. And why should they? If this seems like a tangent, it is not. Most of the population are Orwellian proles when it comes to questioning what they are told. I don’t despise them for this, it just worries me.