Wikipedia: What Is It Good For?
The man credited with founding Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales — known to Wikipedians as "Jimbo" — was a finance major at Auburn University when the Mises Institute's Mark Thornton suggested he read "The Use of Knowledge in Society," a now-famous essay written by Austro-libertarian economist and Nobel laureate Friedrich von Hayek.
The essay argues that prices in the market represent a spontaneous order that results from the interaction of individuals with diverse wants, allowing them to cooperate to achieve complex goals. According to a June 2007 Reason magazine interview, this insight of Hayek's is what led Wales to found Wikipedia. The rather lofty vision that inspired Wales? "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." FULL ARTICLE
Comments (39)
Well, as a result of the title of this article, I will have Edwin Starr stuck in my head for the remainder of the day.
Say it again, y'all!
Published: September 19, 2007 10:33 AM
Who'd 'a thunk? Our own Mark Thornton engendering the idea of Wikipedia in its undergraduate progenitor at Auburn! I suppose Thornton was professor and Wales student? When was the last time a student went and read some (non-mandatory) work recommended (in a class) by a professor?
Yes, in fact, I've done that in 8 years of college, but probably less often than once a year, and I was weird, I know.
I wonder what grade Thornton gave Wales. Wales graduated, his Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_wales shows.
To find out how nasty it can be to try to improve Wikipedia articles on controversial subjects, I'd suggest every Misesian who reads this visit the article on the Gold Standard and attempt to put it right. You WILL be reversed by ever-vigilant statists who lurk everywhere in Wikipedialand, as in the world at large.
Published: September 19, 2007 2:08 PM
Mr. Potts, unfortunately a lot of people are belligerant about certain issues. I have found, though, that being "right" isn't enough to insure your revisions will stand. You have to be able to make an argument for the change based on Wikipedia policy. That is where many people trip up. The "Assume Good Faith" guideline requires editors to assume that others are editing in good faith. Going into a heavily-trafficked article and making serious revisions without making a calm, civil argument for them on the talk page results in a flame war, and your changes will usually get reverted just for that. The procedure counts in getting your changes accepted by others.
Published: September 19, 2007 2:16 PM
What are we to make of WikiScanner, and its ability to track 'editors' back to some rather curious places vis-a-vis the posts they've penned?
Published: September 19, 2007 6:17 PM
link:
http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=WikiScanner
Published: September 19, 2007 6:19 PM
Here's WikiScanner itself:
http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/
Published: September 19, 2007 6:23 PM
“You have to make an argument for the change...” - Hard, when those you are attempting to convince not only outnumber you, but also believe that the “we” comes before the “I”...
Wikipedia has the same failings as democracy – the majority rules, regardless of whether it is right or wrong.
Published: September 19, 2007 6:30 PM
Yep, knowledge is ultimately authoritarian. :) I guess that is why so many leftists are averse to it.
Published: September 19, 2007 6:49 PM
With all those marvelous safeguards of accuracy, isn't it amazing that any mention of the Tax Honesty Movement is always promptly removed as though it didn't exist? Wikipedia is a compost heap.
Published: September 19, 2007 8:08 PM
Well, if you actually visited Wikipedia and searched for "tax honesty," you would see that you would be directed to this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_history
This article is a pretty substantial one. Whether or not you agree with what you find there, it is hardly the case that "any mention of the Tax Honesty Movement is always promptly removed as though it didn't exist," as you claim.
Published: September 19, 2007 8:15 PM
With due respect, I think wikipedia stinks.
Wikipedia is mob rule, not about finding objective facts and truths.
The slogan 'everybody can edit it' is a shameless lie.
Also, I've noticed that a lot of leftists usually settle arguments by providing a link to wikipedia. Of course, they think that such a fallacy as recourse to authority is not a fallacy.
By the way, who owns wikipedia ?
Published: September 19, 2007 8:33 PM
Wikipedia is the world's largest, most trafficked bathroom wall.
Published: September 19, 2007 8:45 PM
Also, on a more serious note, attempts to put all knowledge in a central place are just the opposite of natural order. Wikipedia is really totalitarian and collectivistic.
Encyclopedism is also linked to the french revolution and public education - both disgraceful.
Published: September 19, 2007 9:11 PM
Alex, "majority rule" is not how Wikipedia is administered. In fact, there is a very strong anti-voting sentiment. See this essay on why "polls are evil" (formerly called "voting is evil"):
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Polls_are_evil
Published: September 19, 2007 9:26 PM
Juan, what does it mean to say that Wikipedia is unnatural? It is a technological and social means to a particular end. By your meaning, it seems that any tool that allows one to accomplish a task in a new way is unnatural. Surely you don't want to say that all large projects, even voluntary ones like Wikipedia, are somehow "collectivist"!
As a libertarian, I am pleased to see a public service like this being provided through private, voluntary means. Many more people have access to Wikipedia than have access to up-to-date print encyclopedias. Is it "collectivist" for a private organization to figure out a way to provide a highly demanded service for free to its readers?
Published: September 19, 2007 9:29 PM
Oh, and to answer Juan's other question: The Wikimedia Foundation--a non-profit organization run off of voluntary donations--owns Wikipedia.
See their website here:
http://wikimedia.org/
See also the Wikipedia article about them here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia
Published: September 19, 2007 9:32 PM
Dick, I must thank you for this article. Leftists typically assert that Wikipedia is an example of their ideas working - however, your article is a lovely challenge to the notion of Wikipedia being some kind of socialist fabrication. Au contraire, it shows that by efficiently distributing resources, capitalism allows individuals to focus on other things that matter to them more than pecuniary compensation.
Published: September 19, 2007 9:45 PM
why "polls are evil" (formerly called "voting is evil"):
So they put a more politically correct subject, right ?
Juan, what does it mean to say that Wikipedia is unnatural?
I think that centralizing knowledge is just the opposite of natural order and markets. By natural order I mean market anarchism.
I also think it's a more or less evident fact that wikipedia's articles are politically biased. Regarding less controvertial subjects, wikipedia is just a shallow source of information. If I want to learn something I read books or do web searches. Dictionaries are not serious material for study.
It is a technological and social means to a particular end.
Wich end is that ? Besides, we have the web, wich is way bigger than wikipedia, and really reflects all points of view.
---------
You have read the book, Goldstein's book, or parts of it, at least. Did it tell you anything that you did not know already?'
'You have read it?' said Winston.
'I wrote it. That is to say, I collaborated in writing it. No book is produced individually, as you know.'
----------
So, wikipedia is written using the same technique that big brother uses ? Hmmmmmmmm
Published: September 19, 2007 9:56 PM
Also, wikipedia is not capitalistic. It's not a for-profit firm owned by indiviudals.
Whether 'information' is accurate or not does not affect wikipedia's profit because there are none.
If I buy a computer I know it will work because manufacturers of non-working computers don't last long. When I get 'free information' from wikipedia, what I'm really getting is mostly propaganda or information I can also find someplace else. If people had to pay for wikipedia it wouldn't exist.
Published: September 19, 2007 10:04 PM
Juan,
"Which end"? Ask the thousands of unpaid contributors who all seem to feel they are better off having made their contributions to the project. Who are you to say that their subjective preferences with regards to their time and effort are "unnatural"?
You are right that the web is bigger than Wikipedia. Does that mean we shouldn't have a condensed guide that acts as a starting point in research? No, not any more than the fact that "we have all these newspapers" means "we shouldn't have history books."
Wikipedia is a tool. It is a very popular tool that many, many people find useful. Your dislike for it doesn't undo that fact. I'm not saying people should use it if they don't want to. I am saying that it is incredibly useful to an awful lot of people, and that is a good measure of the project being a success.
Lots of people don't like McDonald's, for instance, but I think it would be silly to say that McDonald's is an unsuccessful endeavor.
Published: September 19, 2007 10:11 PM
Dick,
I don't think you're addressing my arguments.
I'll repeat just one : If users(consumers) had to pay for wikipedia 'we' would be rid of it.
Published: September 19, 2007 10:21 PM
Which end"? Ask the thousands of unpaid contributors who all seem to feel they are better off having made their contributions to the project. Who are you to say that their subjective preferences with regards to their time and effort are "unnatural"?
That's not what I said. Of course people writing articles for wikipedia are free to do that, or whatever they please as long as....you know.
However, I don't see what's so amazing about the fact that some people created an encyclopedia collectively. Did you read my quote from 1984 ?
Published: September 19, 2007 10:27 PM
Juan,
In our sense of the word, the "consumers" do pay for Wikipedia. If a consumer is the one who seeks a good or service to satisfy _his_ felt uneasiness, the people (like me) who actually pay for Wikipedia by donating to the project are the ones keeping it alive. The fact that you non-contributors get to free-ride off of our payments to the Wikimedia Foundation for their hosting and technical service administration is a desirable outcome to me (one reason why I do donate) and to the thousands of other contributors.
By your rationale, we would soon be rid of soup kitchens if only the "customers" had to pay for them. I argue that the _real_ customers (the donors) _are_ the ones who are paying.
Published: September 19, 2007 10:45 PM
Juan,
I read your quote. What is amazing is that tens of thousands of people have voluntarily and without requiring financial remuneration created the largest, most comprehensive single research resource to ever have existed. That is a pretty big deal.
The 1984 quote doesn't seem to relate to this. Even if THE BOOK was created (in Orwell's fictional universe) by similar means, I don't see how that would mean anything. Winston drank gin in Oceania. Let's denounce gin as collectivist!
Published: September 19, 2007 10:49 PM
This is a very interesting debate, yet I think it beggs the question of who in society decides truth? Encyclopaedia, dictionaries and thesaurus were constructed by individuals whom we have given our trust to identify truth for us. Eventually, truth changes according to the social, political and economic pressures on individuals and society at large. Perhaps Wikipedia could be considered a barometer of truth. We may see truth change before our eyes. Perhaps the crowd just needs to be shaped to change their minds. Great leadership is not about how quickly they "affect" change, but how determined they are to change "effect".
Published: September 19, 2007 10:50 PM
The fact that you non-contributors get to free-ride off of our payments to the Wikimedia Foundation...
Excuse me ? How do you know if I free-ride wikipedia or not ? Are you omniscient ?
I argue that the _real_ customers (the donors) _are_ the ones who are paying.
Well, aren't you putting things on their heads ? The donors are customers. What do they buy ? Wait. They are not buying...they are donating.
And if the donors are customers, then what do you call the users ? free-riders ? Isn't that a bit derogative ?
I think wikipedia is virtual socialism. It's posible thanks to tangible property rights and capitalism, of course, but it's not an embodiment of those principles, in my opinion. You're free to disagree, of course. :)
Published: September 19, 2007 11:05 PM
Juan,
Do you believe that charity is wrong? If so, why? "Socialism" as folks around here generally use the term refers to the involuntary reallocation of one group's resources to another by a central planner. That is not occurring with regards to Wikipedia.
And you know what? I don't have to explain what I get or what others get from donating to Wikipedia. The fact that such donations occur is prima facie evidence that we think we get something out of it. And something like 5-10% of Wikipedia users are also content editors. So you could say that what I get out of contributing content and money to Wikipedia is the means to attract other people to contribute, thus making a resource I like to use even more useful.
Your definition of socialism is so broad as to include any form of voluntary cooperation where money doesn't change hands, or so it seems to me. No, "free-riders" aren't bad when the cost of their use is so near to zero (and in fact, as I point out above, actually brings more contributors to the project and so produces a net gain). Was it bad when early private lighthouse owners provided a public service that was not exclusionary? Of course not.
It is one of the wonders of voluntarism that people do come up with new methods for the provision of public goods. This is a central point against the collectivists who claim that voluntary cooperation cannot produce the public goods and services that they say government must exist to provide.
Published: September 19, 2007 11:18 PM
Do you believe that charity is wrong? If so, why?
Aha! I was about to use the word charity to refer to wikipedia. No, I don't think charity is wrong. But I think that if 'we' improved private property, charity would not be needed. So I see charity as a something that doesn't really fix problems, but rather hides them.
I don't have to explain what I get or what others get from donating to Wikipedia.
So don't do it. I didn't ask for your reasons.
Your definition of socialism is so broad as to include any form of voluntary cooperation where money doesn't change hands,
Well, not exactly, but I do see a problem when money doesn't change hands. I think that at mises.org is well knwon that without money prices the market can't exist.
Regarding your last paragraph, I'm not sure I completly get it. The claim that the state is needed to provide so called public-goods is false, I think we agree on that. But voluntarism has nothing to do with that.
'Public goods' can be provided by private firms in a for-profit, money-based economy.
Were private lighthouses a work of charity ? I'm really asking because I don't know. I imagine they were for-profit bussiness, but I can be proved wrong.
Published: September 20, 2007 12:04 AM
I'm not keeping this inside me any longer:
There were a few good comments here; but most were over the top. Most of you should be astronomers, not economists or social perfectors. Your attempts at describing or defining such a simple concept as socialism are boring. You should spend your time looking into a telescope searchng deeper into the universe rather than providing a deeper meaning or definition of socialism.
You remind me of liberals (socialists) searching for a miracle fix that will make society a perfect one (your ultimate goal, like Hitler, to be labeled a genius). Most of you are either repressed socialists or closet socialists. Nothing about you reminds me of libertarian. Hopefully you're all Europeans; if not, or if you're American, leave the country.
Here's my point (realizing I'm talking to an enemy), we are in another phase (or fad) of socialism (fascism) just like the one that swept the planet at the turn of the century (caused by an excessive supply of labor.)
Which one of you control freaks idolizes Hitler or Mussolini ?
Wiki is convenient - it seems to work. Tell them to post a counter counting the number of liberals and conservatives who post there.
If my post angers you then visit a shrink about your repressions. A libertarian would be indifferent.
Published: September 20, 2007 3:19 AM
I did my first edit on wikipedia in the early 2006, since then I have contributed to over hundreds of articles (mostly translate english articles into Chinese wikipedia). It was during the course of my translating that I start to learn about many new things myself, include the Austrian school of economics and austro-libertarianism. Few months later I have read most of books by Rothbard and Mises (thnaks to the PDF files provided by mises.org).
I remember there was a discussion about my translation for Mises institute article: http://blog.mises.org/archives/005840.asp. It was really a pleasure for me to found that my works in wikipedia been noticed by other people, especially when I was already a mises blog reader at the time.
The Reason magazine had an article interviewed Jimmy Wales. It seems like Jimbo is more a Hayekian/minarchist than a diehard libertarian. But I think Wikipedia is still a good place for libertarians to participate. It will be unfair to say Wikipedia is an "altruist" or collectivist system just because it charges no fee from users and readers. People edit Wikipedia when they 1) feel dissatisfied with the current article's revision and want to change it or 2) enjoy the psycho pleasure by improving and creating the articles. In both cases the editor have gain some intangible rewards from editing Wikipedia, so it is in no way an "unpaid labor".
Oh and by the way, thanks to Mr. Dick Clark and your original works in Wikipeida. If you have any new works to be translate please let me know. :)
Published: September 20, 2007 4:20 AM
Tory
If my post angers you...
In case you were addressing me - your post amused me.
Published: September 20, 2007 6:20 AM
"You remind me of liberals (socialists) searching for a miracle fix that will make society a perfect one (your ultimate goal, like Hitler, to be labeled a genius). Most of you are either repressed socialists or closet socialists. Nothing about you reminds me of libertarian. Hopefully you're all Europeans; if not, or if you're American, leave the country."
I'm not quite sure who exactly you're referring to.
Published: September 20, 2007 6:57 AM
Lecter,
I was very excited when I found that you had translated the "Frank Fetter" article into Chinese. Not being able to parse Chinese, all I could do was look, but I think that the fact that people are free to translate Wikipedia articles at will and to republish the translated version is yet another benefit that comes from Wikipedia's unique IP status.
Keep up your good work.
Published: September 20, 2007 7:27 AM
All information is propaganda, but . . .
All propaganda is information.
I find Wikipedia a blessing to my intellectual life. That's one reason I contribute to it (editorially and financially). However, as I noted, participation in controversial articles frequently turns nasty, exactly as this very thread has done.
I'm decidedly NOT squeamish about controvery and argument, and yet, I find Wikipedia an uncomfortable forum for discourse. That makes sense, because it wasn't designed to be that.
Published: September 20, 2007 8:34 AM
Joseph,
I have found many areas of Wikipedia that I didn't find particularly inviting. I've tended towards wholecloth revisions of lower-traffic articles for that reason. I have, on a number of occasions, engaged in edits on controversial topics that resulted in heated debate. I prefer to stay in more peaceful areas (like the Frank Fetter article I linked above) most of the time. I find it more constructive.
Published: September 20, 2007 8:59 AM
wikipedia-watch.org
Published: September 20, 2007 1:19 PM
My professor spouse says Wikipedia is too simple to be any good. I say it's a blessing, a world breakthrough in sharing, and a concept that will never, ever go away except if contributors stop funding or corporations find a way to sue it out of existence to stifle competition. A forum for all! Hooray!
Published: September 22, 2007 2:40 PM
I wonder why information collectivism leads to trouble...
A putsch in the making?
Published: September 29, 2007 11:57 AM
I can't imagine living without Wikipedia. My obsessive curiosity would (probably literally) drive me to madness in a matter of days.
That being said, the increasing pedantry of Wikipedians is making it more and more difficult to contribute to articles. I used to do so fairly regularly, for articles related to my field of research, but now I find it's just not worth jumping through the necessary hoops.
Published: September 29, 2007 12:33 PM