Dr. Johnson and Wikipedia
Last week Nature published its survey of 50 science articles in Wikipedia and Britannica respectively. Result: Wikipedia had 162 errors and Britannica 123.
The literal (numerical) reading of the survey is that Wikipedia is more erroneous than Britannica. This makes the columnist of The Register conclude that Wikipedia is ruthlessly implementing “McDonaldization” of information society: we are simply consuming junk knowledge like “a terrible, bland meal of unhealthy junk food” (though I suspect his use of Prof. George Ritzer’s term ‘McDonaldization is incorrect). Is Wikipedia really a Sir-Isaac-Newton-was-born-in-1462-and-published-the-Theory-of-Relativity dictionary? How can we prove that Wikipedia will survive the dominant capitalistic culture in the long term? Are we being nitpicking! Again Dr. Johnson is at once right and wrong:
It is the fate of those who toil at the lower employments of life, to be rather driven by the fear of evil, than attracted by the prospect of good; to be exposed to censure, without hope of praise; to be disgraced by miscarriage, or punished for neglect, where success would have been without applause, and diligence without reward.
Among these unhappy mortals is the writer of dictionaries; whom mankind have considered, not as the pupil, but the slave of science, the pionier of literature, doomed only to remove rubbish and clear obstructions from the paths through which Learning and Genius press forward to conquest and glory, without bestowing a smile on the humble drudge that facilitates their progress. Every other authour may aspire to praise; the lexicographer can only hope to escape reproach, and even this negative recompense has been yet granted to very few.
Samuel Johnson, Preface to a Dictionary of the English Language
p.s. I learned this news from TechnoLlama . Many thanks to Andres!
Congraduations!!!
hum, I like this new site you build =)
Its clean and unique. Very reliable tone.
But I am just worried about in the future, back in China, I may not able to access to blogsome…
Comment by mars — December 21, 2005 @ 4:29 pm
I like wikipedia!
I think sometimes people worry too much about new technologies and ways of doing things. 162 errors is nothing compared to the enormous amount of info Wikipedia provide. Moreover, they have only three employees working! The whole website largely replies on voluntary work. Its non-capital-dominant motivation is the whole point, I think!
:D
Comment by Peng — January 5, 2006 @ 9:52 pm
Thanks mars, I have set up an identical site at http://viosym.wordpress.com/ which you can gain access anywhere:-)
Comment by viosym — January 6, 2006 @ 1:01 am
Peng, I agree that Wikipedia so far has not yet been contaminated by virus of the omnipotent market, but it can hardly guarantee itself permanently immune from it in the future. Let’s keep fingers crossed. I find the discussion triggered by Larry Sanger who argued “why Wikipedia need jettison elitism” is also very interesting. Cultural populism and so-called “semiotic freedom” (a buzzword these days) might well go hand in hand.
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25
Comment by viosym — January 6, 2006 @ 1:24 am