the clarifying side of wikipedia argument
when i first saw wikipedia, i was amazed. great. i also knew that, even as opinionated and verbal as i am, i didn’t want to become a wiki nerd. too much time, too little payoff, i said.
i am becoming a wikipedia nerd. and there is a notable payoff, though it’s perhaps something i don’t want to continue with once i understand it. i’ve been in a couple arguments now where i’m fighting against “authoritative” claims of objectivity, and trying to get a grip on what i believe may turn out to be the truth: there’s little of the touted 100% objectivity in most encyclopedia articles, nor can there be. however, that doesn’t stop people from running to certain argument-end-intended terms such as NPOV and “encyclopedic”. they’re mere rhetorical ammo in some cases, despite the demonstrated value of the concepts.
writing “correctly” for an encyclopedia is far different from any writing i’ve done — on non-technical subjects anyway. this rigor of NPOV and 100% provability lends itself well to reductio ad absurdum tests, which practice itself gets mired in the same conclusion as above: human discourse must at some point accept imperfection.
there’s nothing like writing knowing that the vultures are circling. i’ve long been wanting to rid my writing of some bad habits, and getting my ass kicked, whether related to those habits or not, brings about a refined view that you don’t usually get when working with friends. i’m digging it. if i’d written with a friend some crap i did just recently at wikipedia, the reaction would have been “that’s fine.” at worst. but there’s little of that from internet strangers at wikipedia; you either defend your shit or it goes out the window. and if in the defending you find that it should go out the window, then that’s what’s known as improvement in some circles — though i’m very happy to be at my blog right now, able to make that claim without attribution, microscopic scrutiny, or…
one of my bad habits i’ve been working on for the last year: a tendency to automatically list things in groups of three, whether needed or not.
if you haven’t checked out wikipedia, you must. you gotta. no choice.