One of my students pointed me recently to this YouTube of the Colbert show on Comedy Central. Colbert is here mocking the Wikipedia, claiming it's "bringing democracy to knowledge" and establishing a "wikiality," or a reality we can all agree upon. It's a brilliant bit of satire, but apparently hordes of Colbertians have taken his tongue-in-cheek advice seriously and began attempting to alter the wikipedia's Elephant page to report that the African elephant population has tripled in recent years. The wikipedians responded accordingly, locking the page "to prevent vandalism" and taking the issue to the discussion page.
It's an interesting episode, and Colbert seems to be highlighting the potential "dark side" of wikipedia--i.e., the sort of fact tampering that played such an insidious role in George Orwell's classic dystopian novel 1984, where hordes of paid state agents (including Winston Smith, the main character) did exactly that. It does give me pause to think. However, it seems to me that, for now, anyway, the Wikipedia is certainly not controlled by any single state government or even particularly left or right wing. Indeed, far from being a weapon to force prejudicial views onto an unwitting populace, the Wikipedia has become a rich, fertile ground for rational-critical debate on any number of controversial issues.
At any rate, I suggest you check out the links and offer your own thoughts on the matter.
Come on. You really think
Come on. You really think all those folks think he's serious? I took the response as silly play from viewers. If the Wikipedia people were smart, they'd unlock the entry and add a header for Satire and let them have at it.
Censors vs. Wikipedia
Indeed, Wikipedia does appear, at this point, to be a tool viewed with some fear by totalitarian states: witness China's repeated attempts to block the site (and the resultant hackster response to circumvent the censorship, a la Dynamic Internet Technology's DynaWeb). For that matter, as has been well documented with regards to China, the internet itself is viewed as a subversive medium (see, for eample, OpenNet Initiative's (ONI) comprehensive survey of internet filtering there). As Nina Hachigian pointed out in a Rand Corporation report on Asia, "For one-party dominant states, the Internet and IT pose a paradox they must resolve—they offer enticing commercial advantages yet can empower dissent and threaten regimes by giving citizens access to new information and a platform for discussion."
According to ONI, an assortment of countries filter, including any number in the Middle East. A former student who has just moved home to Saudi Arabia after four years in the U.S. emailed me recently:
The battle lines appear to be drawn: The question is whether Agent Smith--not Winston, but he of the Matrix--will win, or the heirs of Diderot, Giordano Bruno, Galileo, et al.
Don't be so sure
I wouldn't be so sure, tengrrl. You know the old saying: Satire is the gateway to totalitarianism. Indeed, some historians argue that unappreciated satire is what landed Bush in the oval office. Grains for thought. Oh...and just kidding.
Check out Barton's gaming blog at Armchair Arcade.
my guess
would be that the "vandals" think they are being funny. I guess it could be seen as a bit juvenile but I'm sure the "vandals" will lose interst soon enough and whatever distortions about elephants get in will be taken care of by some die-hard fan of elephants. bradley || bleckblog.org
Wikiality
Wikiality is alive and well, helping to spread Stephen's version of truthiness without the encumberance of "facts".