implicit art

disclaimer: this is a rant and I’m not sure how clear it is. I’ve spent too much time on it already. enjoy!

What is the difference between Wikipedia, the New York Times and Fox News? Well, the former, which is continually ridiculed by librarians and journalists alike, is supposed to be held accountable for only printing facts, while the latter two, oft the source of many a footnote of reliability, are a bit more free.

At least, that’s how it seems to me when I read through this version as opposed to this version of this story. Ironic that the Wiki-defenders give something slightly more balanced….

Wikipedia is a free, open source and huge resource for free information, which anyone can edit – proof in many cases, some might argue, that “anarchic information” is more reliable than “journalistic credentials.” Basically, the story goes that some idiot used the site to jokingly implicate a former newspaper editor in the Kennedy assassinations. But the press is crucifying Wikipedia, instead of the idiot who edited the site (who the victim actually feels sorry for!). This is complete hypocrisy, in that said victim states (link above), “I still believe in free expression…. What I want is accountability.” I’m sorry? Accountability for the person, or the platform?

OK, granted, his point is larger than this. He found the “perpetrator” because he hired a private detective and then the man eventually confessed, so there is indeed less accountability than, say, a journalist who appears on TV or signs his or her name.

However, the bigger argument coming out of this is that Wikipedia is somehow unethical or completely untrustworthy. I have two points to make here in terms of his free speech vs accountability statement.

Free speech. Now in my book, free speech usually goes along with freedom of the press: especially in this case. Wikipedia is full of informative overview documents that they deliberately call “articles.” They can be fixed at any time by anyone who wants to (tho the victim did not exercise this power, as he did not want to “condone the site”). The downside is that anyone can deliberately false edit, and misinformation occasionally appears (an actual rarity); this happened in this case, and was not fixed for four months (mostly a mishap, but those who discovered the mistake decided to go on television, rather than fixing it). The upside, however, is huge. It has to do with power. In this sample, I’m going to go with extreme: Fox.

Fox news (especially Bill O’Reilly) is renowned for op-ed, unchecked propaganda passed off as news. Another example is the NY Times’ Jayson Blair scandal that cost two editors their jobs; they allowed years of lies and made-up stories to slip. However, the Times recovered and the O’Reilly Factor’s bullshit “no spin zone” carries on – in fact, whereas the less-read Wikipedia had to change their forum after this debacle, and apologize on news networks over the nation, we never see Bill do as such….. Granted, the Times was held somewhat accountable and O’Reilly has many, many critics, but the latter, for example, is oft quoted criticizing more factual blogs and sites than his own “pundits” dictate, and he answers to no one for it. He also has a much bigger forum for his “fair and balanced” views, due to money and power; like all of today’s news, he goes after his own agenda, as a mouthpiece for his funders.

Wikipedia, which, I might add, is editable by the likes of both of these institutions, as well as anybody else interested, is a mouthpiece for no one/everyone, and yet they are held to higher standards of fact-checking than this media machine? Wikipedia, a resource literally by, of and for the people* loses all credibility because of one idiot? Well, then all Americans are like Nixon, I guess. Or Charles Manson. Or perhaps Bill O’Reilly would like to hear that he and George Soros are one and the same?

Accountability. Bill O’Reilly has gone after just about every person, web site and paper that exposes his lies, conceit, and affiliation. He uses his TV/radio show as a total bias to the right, then crucifies anyone who disagrees with him. He calls people cowards for not appearing on his show, then refuses to discuss matters with those whose opinions he does not appreciate; and the main problem is that people actually listen to his garbage. He has the most watched news show on cable television.

At wikipedia, for a change, people like Bill cannot go after anyone – either literally (there are several editors, writers, personalities – mostly untraceable) or ethically (as he has the ability to change their entries himself). He can change entries if they are wrong, and he can’t publicly attack any one person as a “liar” or “coward.” This is important (and probably why Wikipedia, as a community and site, is getting discredited as a whole). In the end, since any person can edit or fix, more objective or truthful information tends to comes out – through more contributions and debate, rather than personal attacks. In fact, when Wikipedia editors believe a page may be slightly biased, they flag it, and disclaim, at the top of the page, “this article may not conform to the neutral point of view policy.” (This happens until more participants get involved in editing and debate; for example, their page on Bill O’Reilly.) This is something that Bill doesn’t do for his viewers and listeners…. (More on the Fox news bias, presented by links and FACTS is here.)

Who, exactly, should not “be using Wikipedia as factual information,” as their critics argue? The administration, who use any information (even if it is already discredited), to support their claims to go to War? The “news,” who like Fox, mostly do the same? Fox news’ viewers, who, according to the (editable and accurate) figures at the link above, are some of the most misled people on current events in the nation? Academics, who would not even use a standard encyclopedia, much less an open source one, as factual information anyway? Where is your standard and who are you speaking to here? Or is it just a space to discredit?

I’m not saying I disagree with accountability; what I’m saying is that on Wikipedia, the playing field on “accurate information” is a bit more equal. And it’s the big wigs who don’t like it. If you are opening up a discussion on freedom and accountability, you must also introduce aspects of money and power – we live in a Capitalist society, remember. Accuracy, modern reason tells us, is subjective itself – and if you want to play a numbers game, the Wikis have it.

* granted that in this case, “people” means people with web access. But “people” with access to speak on broadcast or cable television networks, or the ability to print in one of the largest circulated papers in the world, represent a number exponentially smaller than this.