Wikipedia: the defence

Wednesday, April 8th, 2009

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?

(more…)