Reading Oliver Kamm’s critique of Wikipedia on the First Post was an eye-opening experience. It was the first time I’ve enjoyed reading something that so completely failed to grasp the subject under discussion. Take the following paragraph, for example.

“Whereas science and learning pursue truth, Wikipedia prizes consensus. Wikipedia has no means of arbitrating between different claims, other than how many people side with one position rather than another. That ethos is fatal to the advancement of learning. Ideas are refined by being tested; scientific method presupposes scrutiny, experiment and conflict.”

The problem is that this argument, while beautifully stated, has all the substance of a passing cloud. Of course “ideas are refined by being tested,” but when has this ever been the job of an encyclopaedia?

An encyclopaedia is a compedium of current learning, not a rigourous assesment of it. When the Encyclopaedia Britannica first printed an explanation of Special Relativity it did not challenge Einstein’s math. It reported the theory held at that time. When physicists tweaked the theory, such changes where reflected in the next edition. Britannica did not spur the debate, or hold it back. This stage happens long before the theory appears in print. Contrary to Kamm’s argument, an Encyclopaedia is not a forum for competing theories – that happens in scientific journals, labs, law courts and universities.

The idea of “arbitrating between different claims” and theories places on the humble encyclopaedia a task it is singularly ill-equipped for. Arbitration supposes that the arbitrator has a deeper understanding of the issues under debate than the parties presenting the case. This does not hold for encyclopaedias. How can the editors have a deeper understanding than the contributors?

Evidence of this point – something Kamm completely fails to provide throughout his piece – can be found in the fact that Britannica ignored the early teachings of Sigmund Freud. Who could it possibly have called on to assess his theories? In this case, Britannica was forced to wait for exactly the thing Kamm rails against Wikipedia for: “consensus”. Britannica waited to see if Freud’s teachings would attain social traction and then included them.

Encyclopaedias, Wikipedia included, are mirrors of current thought – nothing more. The development of ideas and the job of an encyclopaedia in presenting those ideas are apples and oranges. You can stick the two in the same basket, but don’t criticise one for not being the other. And, if you’re muddled enough to do so, as Kamm does, then at least have the consistency of thought to rail against all encyclopaedias instead of picking on the one with the biggest name.

Lacking intelligence

My problems with this article don’t stop there, though. Take the following line.

“It is also, by design, an anti-intellectual project. Wikipedia recognises no intrinsic value in competence or knowledge; its guiding principle is agreement rather than truth.”

I can only assume, that by “anti-intellectual project”, Kamm is arguing that there’s no specialist academic, or professional figures writing the peices. For a man so enamoured by scientific method to pre-suppose that “much of its content is a pile of dross” without reference to any study or evidence is hypocrisy of the highest order. Especially when the only remotely comprehensive investigation into the matter was conducted by the respected journal Nature, which found that both Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica were about as accurate as each other on their science articles.

Even supposing his original argument wasn’t made of fog, the argument that Wikipedia’s “guiding principle is agreement rather than truth” is nonsense. Wikipedia’s greatest problem is that its guiding principles are unknown. Power rests with a select group of editors who have the power to alter, criticise or take down articles with impunity.  Who governs them? What guides them? We don’t know. Their decisions aren’t based on agreement but whim. As for truth – there are scores of pyschologists who refute Freud’s theory of the Oedipus complex, does that make it false? Again, Kamm misrepresents the point of an encyclopaedia. Its duty is not to find the truth, but to report current theory as best it can, often in terms the layman can understand.

Given the fact that Wikipedia can be updated every minute, rather than every 25 years, I would suggest on this point, at least, the online encyclopaedia has the advantage. Which brings me nicely to his point that “Intellectual inquiry involves testing ideas against the canons of evidence. Wikipedia’s ‘community’ offers members a different route to recognition – one shorn of the burden of earning it.”

It’s a lovely turn of phrase, but one which again betrays a lack of understanding of the subject it addresses. Contributors to Wikipedia earn nothing. There’s no recognition to be had. Indeed it is this anonymity which has become the focal point for Encyclopaedia Britannica’s far more lucid attacks on the site. Accuracy, it argues, is a matter of professional pride. A name bestows prestige, but also accountability. If you’re a professional contributing to Britannica and an inaccuracy is found it’s on your head. Not so with Wikipedia.

This point alone doesn’t mean Wikipedia’s articles are worth less than Britannica’s. For all we know they’re being created by the same people. It just means there’s no obvious recourse if an inaccuracy is found.

Missing the point

What strikes me as strange about Kamm’s piece is that there are plenty of valid criticisms he could have aimed at Wikipedia – some of which we have touched on – and yet he ignored them all. Instead he seems determined to swing his sword at a phantom hydra, cutting off heads that don’t exist. I’ll finish with the paragraph that left me smiling and shaking my head all at once.

“In a culture that prizes discovery and education, respect is never an entitlement. It is earned, and then still contingent, to the extent that ideas prove their resilience against attacks. Wikipedia does not adhere to those standards of intellectual inquiry.”

What Kamm seems to have missed here is that Wikipedia is the idea and that every day it demonstrates its resilience against attacks. Whatever the worth of Wikipedia’s articles, perhaps its greatest value is that it has demonstrated the viability of accumulating information and distributing it freely.

In that sense, Wikipedia has much in common with the printing press. Whereas the printing press managed to rip apart the clergy’s monopoly on learning, Wikipedia has ripped apart the belief that knowledge is a commodity. In this way its social impact may be just as great as that of the printing press – surely that is worthy of respect?