This is short and sweet, but hopefully very thought provoking. Due to the Wikipedia phenomenon, is truth an objective measure anymore? Some call the influence postmodernism or existentialism, but is this something different?
In brief, postmodernism is the belief that we create our own meaning, and that tends to be a very relative meaning. Existentialism is a belief that there is no absolute truth, and intolerance is the greatest evil. Of course existentialism disproves itself, since the very concept is itself a notion of absolute truth (that there is no objective truth). If you're confused, it's ok. You can still learn from this post -- keep reading.
In Wikipedia, I think postmodernism has become the new standard of truth. Citing a source is no longer the measure of an objective reality, rather the group coming to a consensus is the new norm for acceptance. The entire Wikipedia community must agree on a given statement to determine its acceptance into an article. What does that convey to you about truth? Do we do that in other arenas outside of Wikipedia? Do you tend to believe what people tell you rather than something out of a scholarly work? Is community consensus more important to us than objective reality? Just some thoughts. . . .
7 comments:
Surely you're being just the teensiest bit unkind to Wikipedia?
Citing sources is very much a requirement. Unsourced statements can be removed, and articles without sources may have a banner added to make this clear and also risk summary deletion.
Consensus is required for disputed changes, and articles should be written from a neutral point of view.
Hooray for Wikipedia, say I! The more mature articles tend to be balanced and well-researched. But articles recently started and still needing a lot of work can be quite unreliable. Readers need to be aware of this and should always compare other sources.
Don't hear me wrong, Chris: I love Wikipedia. I am a contributor and use it as a reference tool constantly. It's just that the fact that group consensus is required, not necessarily scholarly/peer-review consensus, that intrigued me. There are lots of books about history and religion that are full of crap (and other sources have proved this). But if someone cites those sources, it will appear as though he has verified what he is saying. Hence the new standard of truth is not true objective measures such as is required for a scholarly peer-reviewed article, but rather group consensus -- and if the whole group has been duped, so be it.
Arguably, a majority of the time the group is on target, but I can name a few articles dealing with various aspects of church history where a lot of license has been taken. Typically, there is a lot of silence in church history -- but people like to fill in the gaps, including many authors who have written books on the subject, which are also faulty.
Dan
Haha, Dan you crack me up. I can't believe you posted a blog while on your getaway with Tiffany! Haha, wait, yes I can believe it! Enjoy your leave, man.
Actually I wrote this blog Friday morning and set it to publish at 1AM Saturday, so it only appears that way. I often schedule blogs to publish, I certainly don't have time to write as frequently as it appears ;)
Dan
I definitely agree with your statement about postmodernism in our society today and all that, but I'm not sure if Wikipedia is necessarily a blatant example of that....
I see Wikipedia as more of an alternative, or a supplement, to the traditional kinds of organizing and publishing of research and knowledge. I don't know anyone who uses Wikipedia who would say, "Let's just get rid of all encyclopedias, universities, etc., and just use wikipedia as the ultimate authority for everything!" That would be pretty scary, and a complete embrace of the majority-rules approach to truth.
However, I think you're questions are very interesting, as they tie in to some discussions I've been having lately about matters dealing with truth, scholarship, and how we determine what is "authoritative"...
You mentioned church history, so I'll just stick with that example. Within that whole debate, I've many times encountered this mentality that it's only the "scholarly, peer-reviewed" accounts that count for anything. Anyone who hasn't devoted most of their life to studying a specific topic is treated like they have no business saying anything about it. "Scholarship" then becomes the inpenetrable bullwark that is so often used to fend off anything that questions the status quo. Now, I'm certainly not dogging on scholarship outright, but just saying that we shouldn't be elevating it to such a high level. After all, scholars are human too, and especially when it comes to anything regarding history, they rarely produce work that doesn't rely on quoting OTHER people, whose works also refered to people before them, and so on. At some point we have to recognize that it isn't as "authoritative" as we'd like to think it is....
At this point, I'm just kind of appreciating the irony... Because back in the middle ages and such, the common people were barred from being able to compare the Catholic church with what the scriptures say due to a language barrier. Only the Priests spoke latin, and so no one else could read the bible, or even understand what was being said in the mass. Nowadays, we have the scripture in our common language, but we are so often discouraged from thinking that we can understand the historical context, or the meaning it has for us today, because we do not have the scholarly credibility to do so. To me, "scholarship" seems to have become the defacto replacement for the barrier between the "illuminated" and the masses. It has replaced the little fence that used to literally run across the middle of the sanctuaries, seperating the clergy and the laypeople....
Daniel
Well said Daniel. Point taken. When it comes to church history, there really are some huge gaps (particularly in the first three centuries) where we have lots of writings, but not much of a clue about how things were actually done. Any historian is at best logically trying to fill in the holes in this time era. Although from the little we do know, the evidence overwhelmingly seems to be in Frank Viola's favor. . . .
Just an FYI...in graduate school/seminary, i have found that the first time that i used wikipedia as a source, just for a basic definition, was an immediate cut in grade on the assignment. Most scholars today use wikipedia as a TOOL, but not as the live-all, be-all of research. Many scholars know that there are elements or possibilities of frequent inconsistencies or errors...therefore "Enjoy, but beware!!"
Post a Comment