User:Stevenzenith

Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Silicon Valley, California

By virtue of assertive belligerence or fierce self righteousness the loud often dominate free expression and oppress the voice of the gentle, the compassionate and the wise. In the lands where free expression is possible it is too frequently sacrificed to those who can buy, through favor or cash, privileged access.

In the so-called “free world” the ignorant parade their agendas at the expense of the wise in a frequently unchallenged appeal to convention and steam over the quiet wisdom and suffering of the hidden, the complex and the unpopular.

The “free press” cannot help but distort our perception and our thinking by mediating facts through personality, and “balanced reporting” is constrained by the availability of the articulate on each side.

Freedom of speech is not a balanced thing. There is no requirement that the playing field be leveled. The loud too have the right to be heard; as much right as the meek, the poor and the uneducated. The ignorant – or merely those without the education to appreciate their predicament - have as much right to be heard as the wise.

Today the cause of peace in the world demands that those of us with the ability to speak well must defend those less able. That those of us with the education to appreciate the predicament of others, speak on their behalf.

Yet it is the responsibility of each of us first to listen. In the vast noise there are quiet voices that need to be heard. They will uplift us. They will alert us to injustice. They will inspire and awaken us. They will warn us of the coming storm and they will lead us to discovery. They will humble us.

It is the responsibility of each of us to discern. To think for ourselves and draw our own conclusions. To dismiss the ignorant and favor the wise.

Steven Ericsson-Zenith, Favor the Wise, 2005.

Last reviewed and update by author on July 29th, 2007. Originally published in 2005.

Home page Steven Ericsson Zenith

IASE

SkypeMe: stevenzenith

It was my hope initially to bring order to the presentation of semeiotics and related entries in Wikipedia. Over several months (now some years ago) I did conduct a review of the presentation and directly related subjects. I made a little contribution by at least temporarily deleting the worst, but it's a mess and after due consideration I became very concerned about the social impact of the Wikipedia.

I now believe that the best contribution I can make is to raise the broader issues as I see them on Wikipedia and I have started to have that discussion here. In the following sections I enumerate some of the issues as I see them.

Part of the problem seems to be an understanding of what is achievable in this medium and by this editorial policy. Much of my anxiety originates from my concern for the general public. In particular, this is because I am a father of four home schooled children and the home schooling community is one that I am a little protective of. I expect that most homeschoolers will encounter the Wikipedia.

Notes on Authority
By authority in the following I mean the perceived competence of a given individual to present a given subject so that we may judge to what degree we can trust the information presented.

We build authority, or accept authority, in two distinct ways; by familiarity and convention. Familiarity comes from our personal experience of an individual and their competence. Convention is a social pragmatic that allows us to discern the authority of those unfamiliar to us - college degrees and other honorary titles such as Doctor or Bishop confer this type of authority.

The public has certain expectations regarding the authority of the material they read depending on context and source. The tabloid press is known by convention to provide one level of authority, the Washington Post another, for example. The press and other publishers of all kinds depend upon the integrity of their authority to present the public with information that can be trusted. If that trust is violated the public ceases to trust the publisher and that trust is, rightly, hard won.

Authority on the Web works the same way; through familiarity and social convention. In the case of open web pages published by individuals (blogs or otherwise) authority comes from the particular individual, the readership's familiarity with that individual and referral from other publishers they trust.

Individuals know innately how to deal with individuals familiar to them, they rely on conventions and heresay initially to know how to deal with strangers (unfamiliar publishers).

These pragmatics are the foundation of consensus building in any community. If you undermine this foundation the basis of consensus building is undermined with potentially serious social consequences. Historically, undermining this foundation is destructive to social order. No-one is able to establish authority and no-one has the basis upon which to build consensus. Societies collapse until new conventions are established.

Wikipedia misrepresents its authority
The evangelism by many Wikipedians is often inaccurate and misguided, current disclaimers are not prominently displayed. Guidance (read friendly warnings) about the limitations of Wikipedia needs to be displayed clearly on the main page and at the top of each page. Wikipedia is not Peer Reviewed in any sense and claims that suggest it is are misleading.

Claims by Wikipedians that denounce conventional mechanisms of identifying authority are disingenuous while they seek to establish authority of their own. It should be clear that discrediting the authority of convention is no way to establish ones own authority. Advocating new conventions is the appropriate way forward. Wikipedia can educate the public on how best to assess authority online and ways need to be found that strengthen this instruction by example.

Under current protocols Wikipedia can never be an authority
Under current protocols it is not possible for Wikipedia to establish authority. Content is open to whimsy, well-meaning but misguided (and false) contributions, and deliberate manipulation by special interests.

A common Wikipedian response to this criticism is that some Wikipedian will catch the mischief or error. There are a number of fundamental problems with this response. Firstly it assumes that some Wikipedian will, in fact, monitor change - and that this montioring is ongoing and continuous into the useful future of Wikipedia. Secondly it assumes that the monitoring Wikipedian has the capacity to judge the change. Thirdly that the monitoring Wikipedian knows how to change subtle changes or knows which prior version is more correct.

Identity
The principal problem with Wikipedia is the lack of transparency as it relates to identity. The use of identity on Wikipedia is open to abuse and the past few years of monitoring the situation have not improved matters. Although there have been minor alterations of the identity policy it remains open to wide abuse.

In addition, the current policy threatens effective free speech by denying the protection of anonymity to those that truly require it. In an ocean of anonymity it is impossible to offer the protection of anonymity to those that need it. Anonymity should be a last resort. The shelter for those at risk.

While anonymous users can establish a history, histories cannot be trusted. Histories can be artificially evolved. A single individual can manage multiple identities at little cost. Little information is available to judge the authority of a source or the competence of an author to present a subject. Further, an individual can use multiple false identities to create a false dialog designed to support their cause.

Dates uncertain
The immediacy of comments is uncertain because visible dates and times can be changed or originally inserted arbitrarily. This can be traced by careful review of the page history but such careful review does not help the general impression of immediacy or, indeed, the immediate impression of immediacy. Articles need to show useful immediacy information up front, and not require careful examination of the article history by the general reader.

Recommendations
Wikipedia is not simply a work in progress. While one may have the expectation that the quality of the information will improve, it is as likely to degenerate unless further steps are taken. It is currently impossible to predict under the existing protocols the state of the information on any given visit.

A genuine and careful peer review process and editorial board that sits on top of the Wikipedia that locks down authoritative content and identifies authoritative content and the identity of contributors is required. Such articles must be clearly distinquished from those that lack authority.

Authority comes from identified individuals not from an unidentified mob - even a so-called "smart mob." Good citizens and dilgent Wikipedian's are not able to keep a constant eye on the state of articles.

If Wikipedia added an open review process in which authorities can challenge locked down articles this would make Wikipedia more authoritative than conventional encyclopedias for those articles that are locked down. Authoritative challenges to locked down articles can be appended and aid in subsequent authoritative review.

If authoritative content is secured and marked clearly, this will begin to establish some real authority on Wikipedia.

The public is at risk
The risk to the public is significant while sources lack transparency, Wikipedia can potentially undermine the basis by which the public builds consensus.

Examples of Concerns
John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy

See how easy it is to be manipulated:

Using Wikipedia for Marketing

I expect we will see more examples than ever before in 2006 as people wake up to the issues.

Relevant Links
A relevant blog posting of mine that talks about some of these issues.