From Bruns to Colbert

I was going to write a post based on the parts of this week’s Bruns reading where he sort of talks about agile, but seems to get it all wrong.

Instead I want to talk about Wikipedia.

Palimpsest

A palimpsest is defined (by wikipedia) as being “a manuscript page from a scroll or book that has been scraped off and used again.” Palimpsests were a means to transmit information in a secret manner. Someone would write a message on a leather tablet after scraping off any old information. But the old information would still be partially legible.

I don’t understand Bruns’ comparison of Wikipedia to a Palimpsest. Is he saying that the edit trail of a Wikipedia entry becomes some secret message about the explanation for that post?

Governance

I think more care should be given to the idea of who governs the information that is accepted as truth on Wikipedia. The so-called “god-king” of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, does not exactly have the best moral track record. He talks a good talk when it comes to transparency, but when it came to his girlfriend (the Anne Coulter of Canada) he made sure to keep her Wikipedia page in good shape. (She released IMs after he dumped her – on Wikipedia).

So the guy is a scumbag, it happens. He also spent lots of Wikipedia money on fancy travel and expenses. Remember, Bruns calls this guy the God-king of the Wikipedians. The folks who decide what is truth as far as Wikipedia goes. He is the one who sets the process for how the people who can delete or even lock entries on Wikipedia.

If he is the guy in charge, can we really trust the “truth” of Wikipedia?

Stephen Colbert has had several segments on Wikipedia. He tells his viewers to change Wikipedia to ridiculous things, such as the population of African elephants is increasing, or that Reality is a commodity - and his viewers make the changes.

But he has a point about reality being a commodity. Corporations pay people to make sure any Wikipedia references to their products. This means anyone with enough money can enforce their version of reality on the rest of us. Even the God-King of Wikipedia did this for his girlfriend.

So what is my point

My point is this: human nature is not such that we can expect a true democratization of information. There will always be behind the scenes dealings in which the more powerful will be able to have the final say. There is more to Wikipedia than the Wikilove and good will, and its dangerous not to point out the potential dangers of trusting a crowd-sourced encyclopedia.

Isn’t it weird that a comedy show points it out?

Here’s Colbert on Wikiality – or reality is what is commonly agreed upon:

Here is is interviewing Jimmy Wales: