|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Wikipedia Fanatic
#7799504 - 12/25/07 10:09 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Let me come right out and say it. I LOVE wikipedia. I dont know too much about the mechanics of it, but I think this is a profound concept for the modern age.
I am sort of hippy, in that I absolutely loathe nearly every kind of social system. You know "Ah the fuckin system ruins everything!" Im not really going to go into this notion, maybe you understand, maybe you dont. Basically it draws lines where they dont belong...
But there is something about wikipedia, which I cannot seem to place in words, that makes this social system seem just wonderful! I look at wikipedia and I have hope in the system again.
Isn't this the ultimate power to the individual, collectivized? Anyone can put information up on wikipedia, and anybody can dispute this information.
Unfortunately, academia tends not to agree with wikipedia. Perhaps other groups reject the information of wikipedia also, but as a college student, this is what I am familiar with. Im trying to understand why this is.
Is it because the information is biased? How could this be? Isnt it the ultimate system of peer review? I would think that it is actually better than the formal process, where only the elite keep each other in check. And the elite can be corrupt. There is a blacklist system, in employment (drug testing), in politics, and science. Basically, in any formal situation, one loses all credibility if they support something like say the mind expanding properties of LSD.
The objectivity of formality, which we treat as objective "Science", seems to be too often corrupted by political agenda. Take drug policy for instance. There is apparantly science that indicates that it is unhealthy for you, but at the same time there is "lesser" science that completely disputes this, that says it has never actually been proved that marijuana is bad for you.
This health issue is one of the main forces behind prohibition.
I havent looked, but I would bet that on the wikipedia marijuana page, both sides of this issue are presented. And when both sides are presented, neither can be treated as scientific fact. Remember the Fact/Myth propaganda? .
Anyways Im kind of out of steam here. This isnt the best argument Im sure, really Im wondering if anybody else has thought about this, has any opinions.
Like I said, when I hear wikipedia, I get all these warm and fuzzy notions about society, democracy, etc, but im not quite sure why. It seems to penetrate the bullshit of elitism that runs our "democracy" in the US
There really seems to be something incredibly profound about wikipedia...
|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
|
heh, I realize that all was none to coherent, but I was more hoping to spark someones interest who might be a little more familiar with this concept; Maybe put my disjointed thoughts into order?
Thanks for looking anyway
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|
*Shmoopy adds DayTripper's disjointed thoughts as an argument against marijuana on Wikipedia*
--------------------
|
truekimbo2
Cya later, friends.



Registered: 12/08/02
Posts: 9,234
Loc: ny
|
|
i like to go through wikipedia and slightly alter dates and places...
sucks now that they have the compare version button.
i do it because i've been told, that just like anywhere it has active community drama and moderator bias.
many of the main articles that could be considered controversial are kept unbiased by mods using bots to auto delete revisions... so whichever mod is focusing his attention on that article basically gets to choose what information goes on the page.
all in all i like it, though i would never join the wikipedia community.
-------------------- You can check the last post in my journal for contact info.
|
|