Wikipedia ripe with libel and copyright violations
I am being defamed and forged here
By Sam Vaknin
palma[at]unet.com.mk
http://samvak.tripod.com
(The author was among the first contributors to Nupedia, the
Wikipedia's peer-reviewed predecessor, and spent six years, on and off,
studying the Wikipedia)
It is a question of time before the Wikipedia self-destructs and
implodes. It poses such low barriers to entry (anyone can edit any
number of its articles) that it is already attracting masses of
teenagers as "contributors" and "editors", not to mention the less
savory flotsam and jetsam of cyber-life. People who are regularly
excluded or at least moderated in every other Internet community are
welcomed, no questions asked, by this wannabe self-styled
"encyclopedia"
Six cardinal (and, in the long-term, deadly) sins plague this online
venture. What unites and underlies all its deficiencies is simple:
Wikipedia dissembles about what it is and how it operates. It is a
self-righteous confabulation and its success in deceiving the many
attests not only to the gullibility of the vast majority of Netizens
but to the PR savvy of its sleek and slick operators.
1. The Wikipedia is opaque and encourages recklessness
The overwhelming majority of contributors to and editors of the
Wikipedia remain anonymous throughout the process. Anyone can register
and members' screen-names (handles) mean nothing and lead nowhere.
Thus, no one is forced to take responsibility for what he or she adds
to the "encyclopedia" or subtracts from it. This amounts to an
impenetrable smokescreen: identities can rarely be established and
evading the legal consequences of one's actions or omissions is easy.
Everything in the Wikipedia can be and frequently is edited, re-written
and erased and this includes the talk pages and even, to my utter
amazement, the history pages! In other words, one cannot gain an
impartial view of the editorial process by sifting through the talk and
history pages of articles (most of which are typically monopolized by
fiercely territorial "editors"). History, not unlike in certain
authoritarian regimes, is being constantly re-jigged on the Wikipedia!
2. The Wikipedia is anarchic, not democratic
The Wikipedia is not an experiment in online democracy, but a form of
pernicious anarchy. It espouses two misconceptions: (a) That chaos can
and does lead to the generation of artifacts with lasting value and (b)
That knowledge is an emergent, mass phenomenon. But The Wikipedia is
not conducive to the unfettered exchange of information and opinion
that is a prerequisite to both (a) and (b). It is a war zone where many
fear to tread. the Wikipedia is a negative filter (see the next point).
3. The Might is Right Editorial Principle
Lacking quality control by design, the Wikipedia rewards quantity. The
more one posts and interacts with others, the higher one's status, both
informal and official. In the Wikipedia planet, authority is a function
of the number of edits, no matter how frivolous. The more aggressive
(even violent) a member is; the more prone to flame, bully, and harass;
the more inclined to form coalitions with like-minded trolls; the less
of a life he or she has outside the Wikipedia, the more they are likely
to end up being administrators.
The result is erratic editing. Many entries are completely re-written
(not to say vandalized) with the arrival of new kids on the Wikipedia
block. Contrary to advertently-fostered impressions, the Wikipedia is
not a cumulative process. Its text goes through dizzyingly rapid and
oft-repeated cycles of destruction and the initial contributions are at
times far deeper and more comprehensive than later, "edited", editions
of same.
Wikipedia is misrepresented as an open source endeavor. Nothing can be
further from the truth. Open source efforts, such as Linux, involve a
group of last-instance decision-makers that coordinate, vet, and cull
the flow of suggestions, improvements, criticism, and offers from the
public. Open source communities are hierarchical, not stochastic.
Moreover, it is far easier to evaluate the quality of a given snippet
of software code than it is to judge the truth-content of an edit to an
article, especially if it deals with "soft" and "fuzzy" topics, which
involve the weighing of opinions and the well-informed exercise of
value judgments.
4. Wikipedia is against real knowledge
The Wikipedia's ethos is malignantly anti-elitist. Experts are scorned
and rebuffed, attacked, and abused with official sanction and blessing.
Since everyone is assumed to be equally qualified to edit and
contribute, no one is entitled to a privileged position by virtue of
scholarship, academic credentials, or even life experience.
The Wikipedia is the epitome and the reification of an ominous trend:
Internet surfing came to replace research, online eclecticism
supplanted scholarship, and trivia passes for erudition. Everyone's an
instant scholar. If you know how to use a search engine, you are an
authority.
Recently, on a discussion list dedicated to books with a largely
academic membership, I pointed out an error in one of the Wikipedia's
articles. The responses I received were chilling. One member told me
that he uses the Wikipedia to get a rough idea about topics that are
not worth the time needed to visit the library. Whether the rough ideas
he was provided with courtesy the Wikipedia were correct or
counterfactual seemed not to matter to him. Others expressed a mystical
belief in the veracity of "knowledge" assembled by the masses of
anonymous contributors to the Wikipedia. Everyone professed to prefer
the content proffered by the Wikipedia to the information afforded by
the Britannica Encyclopedia or by established experts!
Two members attempted to disproved my assertion (regarding the error in
the Wikipedia) by pointing to a haphazard selection of links to a
variety of Internet sources. Not one of them referred to a reputable
authority on the subject, yet, based largely on the Wikipedia and a
sporadic trip in cyberspace, they felt sufficiently confident to
challenge my observation (which is supported by virtually all the
leading luminaries in the field).
These gut reactions mirror the Wikipedia's "editorial" process. To the
best of my knowledge, none of my respondents was qualified to comment.
None of them holds a relevant academic degree. Neither do I. But I
strove to stand on the shoulders of giants when I spotted the error
while my respondents explicitly and proudly refused to do so as a
matter of principle!
This may reflect the difference in academic traditions between the
United States and the rest of the world. Members of individualistic,
self-reliant and narcissistic societies inevitably rebel against
authority and tend to believe in their own omnipotence and omniscience.
Conversely, the denizens of more collectivist and consensus-seeking
cultures, are less sanguine and grandiose and more willing to accept
teachings ex-cathedra. So said Theodore Millon, a great scholar and an
undisputed authority on personality disorders.
5. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia
Truth in advertising is not the Wikipedia's strong suit. It presents
itself, egregiously, as an encyclopedia. Yet, at best it is a community
of users who exchange eclectic "information" on a regular and
semi-structured basis. This deliberate misrepresentation snags most
occasional visitors who are not acquainted with the arcane ways of the
Wikipedia and trust it implicitly and explicitly to deliver facts and
well-founded opinions. There is a lot the Wikipedia can do to dispel
such dangerous misconceptions (for instance, it could post disclaimers
on all its articles and not only on a few selected pages). That it
chooses to propagate the deception is telling and renders it the
equivalent of an intellectual scam, a colossal act of con-artistry.
The Wikipedia thus retards genuine learning by serving as the path of
least resistance and as a substitute to the real thing: edited,
peer-reviewed works of reference. High school and university students
now make the Wikipedia not only their first but their exclusive
"research" destination.
It could have been different.
Consider, for instance the online and free Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Each entry is written by an expert but is frequently
revised based on input from members of the public. It combines the best
elements of the Wikipedia (feedback-driven evolution) with none of its
deficiencies.
6. The Wikipedia is rife with libel and violations of copyrights
As recent events clearly demonstrate, the Wikipedia is a hotbed of
slander and libel. It is regularly manipulated by interns, political
staffers, public relations consultants, marketing personnel, special
interest groups, political parties, business firms, brand managers, and
others with an axe to grind. It serves as a platform for settling
personal accounts, defaming, distorting the truth, and re-writing
history.
Less known is the fact that the Wikipedia is the greatest single
repository of copyright infringements. Books - from the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual down to my own, far humbler, tomes - are regularly
ripped off and posted in various articles, with and without
attribution.
The Wikipedia does not provide any mechanism to redress wrongs, address
problems, and remedy libel and copyright infringements. Editing the
offending articles is useless as these are often "reverted" (restored)
by the offenders themselves. My personal experience is that
correspondence with and complaints to Wikimedia and to Jimmy Wales go
unanswered.
The Wikipedia has been legally shielded from effective litigation
because, hitherto, it enjoyed the same status that Bulletin Boards
Services (BBS) and other, free for all, communities have. In short:
where no editorial oversight is exerted, no legal liability arises to
the host even in cases of proven libel and breaches of copyright.
But the Wikipedia has been treading a thin line here as well. Anyone
who ever tried to contribute to this "encyclopedia" discovered soon
enough that it is micromanaged by a cabal of c. 1000 administrators
(not to mention the Wikimedia's full-time staff, fuelled by 2 million
US dollars in public donations). These senior editors regularly
interfere in the contents of articles. They do so often without any
rhyme or reason and on a whim (hence the anarchy) - but edit they do.
This fact and recent statements by Wales to the effect that the
Wikipedia is actually regularly edited may provoke victims of the
Wikipedia into considering class action lawsuits against the Wikimedia,
Jimmy Wales personally, and their Web hosting company.
The Wikipedia is an edited publication. The New-York Times is
responsible for anything it publishes in its op-ed section. Radio
stations pay fines for airing obscenities in call-in shows. Why treat
the Wikipedia any differently? Perhaps, hit in the wallet, it will
develop the minimal norms of responsibility and truthfulness that are
routinely expected of less presumptuous and more inconspicuous
undertakings on the Internet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Vaknin ( http://samvak.tripod.com ) is the author of Malignant Self
Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the
East. He served as a columnist for Global Politician, Central Europe
Review, PopMatters, Bellaonline, and eBookWeb, a United Press
International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent, and the editor of
mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory
and Suite101.
Until recently, he served as the Economic Advisor to the Government of
Macedonia.
Visit Sam's Web site at http://samvak.tripod.com
Barbara Schwarz
I am being defamed and forged here wrote:
> The Six Sins of the Wikipedia
>
>
> By Sam Vaknin
>
> palma[at]unet.com.mk
> http://samvak.tripod.com
>
>
> (The author was among the first contributors to Nupedia, the
> Wikipedia's peer-reviewed predecessor, and spent six years, on and off,
> studying the Wikipedia)
>
> It is a question of time before the Wikipedia self-destructs and
> implodes. It poses such low barriers to entry (anyone can edit any
> number of its articles) that it is already attracting masses of
> teenagers as "contributors" and "editors", not to mention the less
> savory flotsam and jetsam of cyber-life. People who are regularly
> excluded or at least moderated in every other Internet community are
> welcomed, no questions asked, by this wannabe self-styled
> "encyclopedia"
>
> Six cardinal (and, in the long-term, deadly) sins plague this online
> venture. What unites and underlies all its deficiencies is simple:
> Wikipedia dissembles about what it is and how it operates. It is a
> self-righteous confabulation and its success in deceiving the many
> attests not only to the gullibility of the vast majority of Netizens
> but to the PR savvy of its sleek and slick operators.
>
> 1. The Wikipedia is opaque and encourages recklessness
True.
>
> The overwhelming majority of contributors to and editors of the
> Wikipedia remain anonymous throughout the process. Anyone can register
> and members' screen-names (handles) mean nothing and lead nowhere.
> Thus, no one is forced to take responsibility for what he or she adds
> to the "encyclopedia" or subtracts from it. This amounts to an
> impenetrable smokescreen: identities can rarely be established and
> evading the legal consequences of one's actions or omissions is easy.
>
> Everything in the Wikipedia can be and frequently is edited, re-written
> and erased and this includes the talk pages and even, to my utter
> amazement, the history pages! In other words, one cannot gain an
> impartial view of the editorial process by sifting through the talk and
> history pages of articles (most of which are typically monopolized by
> fiercely territorial "editors"). History, not unlike in certain
> authoritarian regimes, is being constantly re-jigged on the Wikipedia!
>
> 2. The Wikipedia is anarchic, not democratic
True.
>
> The Wikipedia is not an experiment in online democracy, but a form of
> pernicious anarchy. It espouses two misconceptions: (a) That chaos can
> and does lead to the generation of artifacts with lasting value and (b)
> That knowledge is an emergent, mass phenomenon. But The Wikipedia is
> not conducive to the unfettered exchange of information and opinion
> that is a prerequisite to both (a) and (b). It is a war zone where many
> fear to tread. the Wikipedia is a negative filter (see the next point).
>
> 3. The Might is Right Editorial Principle
True.
True
True.
>
> Truth in advertising is not the Wikipedia's strong suit. It presents
> itself, egregiously, as an encyclopedia. Yet, at best it is a community
> of users who exchange eclectic "information" on a regular and
> semi-structured basis. This deliberate misrepresentation snags most
> occasional visitors who are not acquainted with the arcane ways of the
> Wikipedia and trust it implicitly and explicitly to deliver facts and
> well-founded opinions. There is a lot the Wikipedia can do to dispel
> such dangerous misconceptions (for instance, it could post disclaimers
> on all its articles and not only on a few selected pages). That it
> chooses to propagate the deception is telling and renders it the
> equivalent of an intellectual scam, a colossal act of con-artistry.
>
> The Wikipedia thus retards genuine learning by serving as the path of
> least resistance and as a substitute to the real thing: edited,
> peer-reviewed works of reference. High school and university students
> now make the Wikipedia not only their first but their exclusive
> "research" destination.
>
> It could have been different.
>
> Consider, for instance the online and free Stanford Encyclopedia of
> Philosophy. Each entry is written by an expert but is frequently
> revised based on input from members of the public. It combines the best
> elements of the Wikipedia (feedback-driven evolution) with none of its
> deficiencies.
>
> 6. The Wikipedia is rife with libel and violations of copyrights
True
-- Barbara Schwarz
http://www.thunderstar.net/~schwarz/lrh/fbidocs.html
The generosity of L. Ron Hubbard: "The hardest task one can have is to
continue to love his fellows despite all reasons he should not. And the
true sign of sanity and greatness is to so continue. For the one who
can archive this, there is abundant hope." -- L.Ron Hubbard (From What
is Greatness? Certainty Vol. 13 No. 3, March 1966)
"It takes truth to live with a swiftly changing world. Nothing less
than truth can survive." -- L. Ron Hubbard
Paul F. Johnson
>
> True.
You know, there is nothing sadder than replying to your own posting to try
and make it look like someone agrees with you. Sad, sad, sad...
--
"Der einzige Weg, Leute zu kontrollieren ist sie anzulügen" - L. Ron "Ich
kann kein Science-Fiction schreiben" Hubbard; Lügner, Betrüger, Fixer und
Wohltäter zu niemandem
zzbu...@netscape.net
I am being defamed and forged here wrote:
>
>
> By Sam Vaknin
>
> palma[at]unet.com.mk
> http://samvak.tripod.com
>
>
> (The author was among the first contributors to Nupedia, the
> Wikipedia's peer-reviewed predecessor, and spent six years, on and off,
> studying the Wikipedia)
Well, most of us thought Wikipedian's would have learned
from THE HISTORY CHANNEL.
Since we tried the same thing with AT&T, rather than
the IBM duncecrat morons 150 years ago,
with Teletype Encyclopedia's.
But the only place that got us was a visit to moron
Bill Clinton's Office.
Bob LeChevalier
>>> 1. The Wikipedia is opaque and encourages recklessness
>>
>> True.
>
>You know, there is nothing sadder than replying to your own posting to try
>and make it look like someone agrees with you. Sad, sad, sad...
It is even sadder when the article listed as its first complaint, that
any idiot or nutcase can edit Wikipedia, when her complaint is that
Wikipedia WON'T let her do so. The article is outdated at best, and
most likely is just simply wrong.
lojbab