![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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).
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).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-11-11 04:09 pm (UTC)From: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.