I fucking hate Wikipedia.

[aderam]

Pardon my French.

I realize that as a university student in North America I'm in the vast minority because of this view, and let me tell you, it really sucks. In this Wikipedia-centered culture every time there's a question about any kind of fact whatsoever, the answer has become "Wikipedia!" And every time that happens I have to explain why I refuse to go to that site in order to find something out that can just as easily be found through Google. In the end it's this attitude with which I have a problem.

I've heard all the arguments in favour of Wikipedia, and I've found that I hate debating the topic because I always end up feeling like an asshole. For example: Argument in Favour #1 - Freedom of Information. Honestly, how the hell am I supposed to argue against that without seeming like an elitist bastard? Well, maybe I am an elitist bastard, but I'm not sitting here and complaining about Wikipedia because it annoys me that the masses (and isn't that a lovely derogatory word?) have access to information. I hate Wikipedia because it is a part of this culture of entitlement that has developed because of the internet.

Wikipedia is part of the greater system of disrespect for intellectual property that has become so widespread in my generation. I have actually had people tell me that it was dumb to rent movies when you could download them off the internet for free (tell me I don't have to explain how wrong that is). Call me old fashioned, but I've always believed in paying for something that is of worth to me. And intellectual property is no different. Just because it doesn't have any packaging or material substance doesn't mean that it didn't take a lot of work to make, and isn't worth a lot of money. And yeah okay, most of the stuff on Wikipedia can be found on the internet in general and we're not paying for that per se, but that's not the problem. The problem is that people think that Wikipedia is a real Encyclopedia. And now one of you is going to jump down my throat and point out that they've done studies and Wikipedia is actually almost as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica, but that's not the POINT. The point is that people should get paid for their work, and when Wikipedia becomes The Source of information it cheapens the achievements of people who are doing this for a living.

Think about textbooks for a second. Everyone complains about how much we have to spend on textbooks (Hell, I've even complained a little bit about it when I have to buy small hardcovers that are $50 - the works of Virgil), but when you really think about it, about all the work and time and effort that has culminated in that text (imagine the number of times that the works of Virgil had to be copied by hand in order for it to survive for us to read, not to mention the more recent work of reconciling the discrepancies in the manuscripts and punctuating the entire blasted thing), the amount you're paying is quite reasonable. And if you can't afford it, there's always the library. (And Wikipedia is not the solution to underfunded libraries. Also I maintain that if you don't have the time to go to the library then you don't really need to know that piece of information, yeah sure, it'd been nice, but it would be nice if I had a million dollars too.)

Information and education is a privilege. In a perfect world would have unlimited access to both, but I think that we can all agree that this isn't a perfect world.

And it really sucks because there are a lot of things about Wikipedia that I would love if they we're trying to be "the free encyclopedia". The software is great for posting up information on TV shows and books, sports, and other cultural phenomena that aren't covered in normal encyclopedias. But I also feel like I have to be all or nothing. If I use Wikipedia suddenly my arguments against it are undermined [kinda like how guilty I feel every time I actually think about what it means that I download episodes of TV off the internet (I am so pissed off that iTunes doesn't sell them in Canada. So. Pissed. Off)].

So I won't ever use Wikipedia. Please stop asking me to. You can use it if you like, I won't hate you just because I hate it.

Sorry this ended up coming out; it's been bubbling beneath the surface for quite some time now. I think I even have a word file somewhere which is entitled "Rant - the evils of an internet society", in which I was feeling angry and pompous apparently. But this is the one aspect of the internet that I hate, which makes me feel very unhappy because I love the internet.

Feel free to tell me how wrong I am, but I might not respond. I'm generally not a big fan of these kinds of debates because they never change my mind, and they only ever end with me being really upset and rehearsing points I should have made while being an insomniac (not my favourite state of being, I'm sure you understand).

Comments

[denisia.livejournal.com]

ITA.

I do refer to Wikipedia, and I think it's a really valuable resource for things that won't be found in an academic encyclopedia, but I agree with you on the academic/scholarly research issue. Not to mention that since Wikipedia can be edited by everyone and anyone, and information isn't fact-checked before it goes up, the pages there can have wildly incorrect information or something slanted to someone's personal agenda.

[aderam.livejournal.com]

What does ITA stand for? I've been squinting at it for a while now and I can't figure it out...

Thanks for the agreement!

[denisia.livejournal.com]

"I totally agree." :)

[karenjeane.livejournal.com]

Here's something you will enjoy from Something Awful: Wikigroaning (http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/wikigroaning.php). :) The comparisons are quite wry.

[aderam.livejournal.com]

Te He...

[hobbitbabe.livejournal.com]

I love you. I would love to link to this page on a friendslocked post; may I?

I use Wikipedia when imdb.com doesn't give me enough information to satisfy my tv-show obsessions. But (a) I go to imdb.com first, (b) I usually then find the fan websites as references on Wikipedia and go there, and (c) I usually correct stuff on Wikipedia pages. One thing I've resisted correcting, though, is the specific wrong statement that led me to bust some students for copying stuff from Wikipedia in a lab report without any referencing - I kind of like it that the proof of not trusting them in my field is still there.

The argument "it's more correct than one specific encyclopedia" is irrelevant, because any scholar or open-minded person is not going to base his or her learning on one specific encyclopedia anyway.

[aderam.livejournal.com]

Yes you can link to this if you want. I ended up leaving it un-friend's locked for a reason.

[wcg.livejournal.com]

Hi. I followed hobbitbabe's link over here.

I don't share your antipathy toward Wikipedia, but I do appreciate your analysis of its shortcomings. Having written the bulk of one Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Haas-Shubnikov_effect), I suppose I've subscribed to the notion that it has some basic worth. But it is certainly damaged by people who think they know more about topics than they really do, and by people who are quite sure of things that are just flat wrong.

Where I think Wikipedia may offer the most in the way of technical information is precisely in the sort of article I wrote: Information that is only available in limited circulation even in terms of university libraries. I certainly wouldn't expect anybody who intended to perform experiments to do so with only my little article to guide them, but it might just be enough to supplement the sparse coverage found in current graduate text books for some graduate student who's wondering what the effect is and what it means.

complementary rant

[sdaha.livejournal.com]

Well said. I agree with you. I've not been to that site. One of my teachers actually prefers the internet to library research and doesn't seem to understand that the Internet doesn't have checks and balances on accuracy. She doesn't understand about sources except to know she has to site what she uses. Scary. I get really peeved at people who think that music ought to be free. How are the musicians going to feed themselves? When the man who wrote 'Snowbird' for Anne Murray stood at the podium and accepted a special Juno for writing that song he thanked Anne for singing his song because it allowed him to buy his house. Yup he made enough money to own a house Down East. He must have been doing something else or he'd be dead of starvation. Grump grump grump. All I can do is live by my own morals. At least then I can sleep comfortably at night.

Re: complementary rant

[aderam.livejournal.com]

I don't understand how academics can manage to think that way. I got a handout in class last year with a block quotation from Wikipedia and I was so livid I nearly exploded.

[jetfx.livejournal.com]

Wikipedia's shortcomings aside, I think it's very unfair to place it within a context of disrespect for intellectual property. The difference between downloading a movie and reading Wikipedia is that the information on Wikipedia is compiled and written by volunteers. It is freely given and it is open source. If people want to give away their work, it is perfectly permissible, unless you're the Science Fiction Fantasy Writers of America (http://community.livejournal.com/sfwa/10039.html). People should not have to get paid for their work, that's what volunteering is all about.

Besides, the traditional concept of copyright law really needs an overhaul for the internet, since infinitely replicating digital information is very hard to limit access to.

[nellorat.livejournal.com]

As a frequent contributor to reference books, let me say that (1) I don't feel Wikipedia in any way cheapens my achievements, and (2) on many topics, I have found Wikipedia to be more accurate than the books I consulted on the topic. I'm more wary of Wikipedia entries on controversial topics or entries in which there is any motive to goof around or play pranks--but I'll tell you, doing this stuff professionally made me realize how biased and inaccurate "real" sources can be!

[tinyfishie.livejournal.com]

No comment on Wikipedia because I love you, but a brief objection to your discussion of textbooks:

(A caveat: the textbook thing makes me pretty darn mad, to the point where I am going to use words I normally hate to use like "exploitation" and "corporate." I don't like to use these words any more than you, as a good and decent person, like to use "the masses," but sometimes we have to. Oh, life. Here we go!)

Textbooks are not expensive because the people who write textbooks put so much effort into them. I know this because I know how much of the money publishers make off them actually makes its way back to textbook writers, of whom I know many (as I'm sure you do as well, both of us being academia-brats). The reason that the publishing companies make so much money is: (1) editions (oh, you insidious snakes!) and (2) for students (especially science students), the demand for textbooks is inelastic, which leads to a kind of unfortunate profit relationship as in (1).

Since textbooks are, for the most part, a necessity for students (since not all professors put textbooks on reserve in the library, or one may have difficulty gaining access to them if they ARE in the library, or one may be one of those people who can't get enough studying done in a two-hour reserve period, or need to write in books, or whatever, not to mention the fact that science students need workbooks, &c., which can't be put in libraries. Not to mention that no, unfortunately sometimes we just DON'T have time to do things we need to do, such as go to libraries. If I lived in Dartmouth, I don't think my research would be as careful, because the libraries are only open so many hours, and there are an equal number of things that I also NEED to do, like eat, sleep, WRITE pepers, read other things, go to the hospital, etc. If I had to factor in an hour of travel time every time I went to the library, it's possible that I wouldn't have the time to go read a textbook there. Whoa, long parenthetical tangent. Escaping parentheses...now!), as long as textbook prices are fairly consistent between publishers, they can pretty much charge anything they want because they have control over the market. This means that they can (and do!) get away with paying the academics who write them comparitively little, and then selling the books for an inordinate amount. The rise in textbook prices compared to inflation and the costs associated with production over the last thirty years speaks for itself (I have a graph somewhere). The problem is further compounded by the fact that the publishers put out a new edition every year or so (oh, you insidious snakes!!), and OFTEN (not just sometimes, but actually very frequently) the ONLY difference between editions will be a change in formatting, or slightly different graphics (often plundered from stock-photo archives), or something that has NOTHING to do with the content. So the publishing companies use the same information--EXACTLY the same content--but charge universities and, by extension, students, all over again. Why? Because they can. This is pure exploitation of those who provide and consume information as a career. And it makes me SO mad.

[tinyfishie.livejournal.com]

(Rant too long; split into two comments because I am INCREDIBLY VERBOSE)


Virgil may have been copied by hand a thousand times before he got to you, but the publishing house that publishes your hardcover edition of Opera Vergilii (or whatever the fun Latin title of that great book you have it) doesn't have to pay THEM. Nor has the most recent translator received anything but a pittance for HIS work. And this is for the most direct kind of academic reading purchase, paying one person for his direct work--those of us who buy science textbooks, a patchwork of different academics' research and writing, are even more deeply caught in the middle of my constant struggle to believe that our society is fundamentally altruistic in the face of such gross corporate selfishness.

One final remark: While I don't think people have a "right" to knowledge (or a "right" to have textbooks that are affordable so that they can follow their chosen career paths), I DO think that trying to egalitarianize information and make it more accessible is a good way for us to use our resources, as a society. And while I agree that things that have intellectual property rights in a freestanding sense (such as music and movies, neither of which I download from the Internet for personal ethical reasons) shouldn't be distributed on the Internet as a way of getting around those rights, the fact is that Wikipedia is not in contravention of any intellectual property law now on the books, nor of any of the ones that are being proposed (this is one area of my father's specialty in law, so we've had basically endless debates on this subject). Although, as I say, I'm not going to get into a pro- / anti-Wikipedia deabte with you (because I'm of two minds on the issue myself), I DO think it's important to stress that Wikipedia consists of people volunteering their own knowledge or (correctly) citing others' (which means that the original authors of sources do get credit), putting it squarely in the clear, IP-law-wise.

But back to textbooks: I think it would be really nice if our society was entirely functional when it comes to money, but the fact is that financial power relations in North America do tend to be highly exploitative, and a lot of time it's not that you get what you pay for, but rather that you pay because they can make you. Which I hate to say, because you know I hate to think that people have anything but the best intentions! Anyway, that's why I think you may be a bit off the mark, textbook-wise.

God that was long. I get really pissed off about the textbook situation, is all. But hey, if you don't like Wikipedia, I don't think that's a bad thing, by any means--to my mind, it's a sociocultural more than strictly academic phenomenon, and God knows I don't like everything in our current culture. Like wearing leggings instead of pants. Gross.

P.S. I'm sorry for what I assume was Stu's less-than-gentlemanly treatment of any discussion he may have had with you on this subject. Major empathy.

[hobbitbabe.livejournal.com]

since not all professors put textbooks on reserve in the library

At least some universities have a current policy of not buying new textbooks that are used for courses, because of all the things to put their budget into, they figure those books are accessible elsewhere.

Your sentiments make me proud of you!

[dragon3.livejournal.com]

Truth is good in a reference work, as is rewarding those who contribute to it. Likewise, stealing entertainment is vile.

Still, there are shades of gray. I would be delighted if that book chapter I wrote twenty odd years ago was widely available for free. It might have saved a PhD candidate some recent embarrassment. I'd even give back the paper copy of the book I got for writing it... (Devaluation of academic work is definitely not new!)

I find Wikipedia a good first line source, probably about as valid as asking any *one* university faculty member for an opinion. (It seems to be pretty good on matters of fact, like the physical properties of fluids or uncontested historical dates.) In any case it would be a bad move to take either at face value, yet both can inform a critical search for more detailed and accurate information.

Maybe it would help to think of Wiki as the Classics Illustrated

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classics_Illustrated

or Wishbone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishbone_%28TV_series%29

that brought something, rather than nothing, to several generations. I apologize for the Wiki cites, bu they will at least make it clear what I'm talking about ;-)