Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » Time for change » Read entry Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
THE UNFULFILLED PROMISE
Posted by Time for change in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Sat May 09th 2009, 06:01 PM
I have noticed that there are many people, both in and outside of DU, who exhibit a sort of condescending attitude towards the use of Wikipedia as an information source. One DUer for example, during the course of my argument with him, responded to my use of a Wikipedia reference with a comment along the lines of “Wikipedia! ha ha”.

To the contrary, I have found Wikipedia to often be a useful source of information. In some respects it has important advantages over most other sources of information. That is not to say that its information is always correct or that there are not usually other sources of more informative information on a given topic. But the idea of discounting or mocking information simply because it came from Wikipedia is ridiculous.

In this post I will try to counteract what I see as some of the prejudices against Wikipedia as a source of information, by first describing how and why I use it, and then discussing some of its advantages over most other sources of information. Lastly, I will describe what I see as its most important limitation.


My use of Wikipedia when posting DU articles

Statements made in Wikipedia articles can be classified into three categories with respect to references: 1) those backed up with on-line references; 2) those backed up with references that are not available on-line – such as from a book; and 3) those backed up by no references (in which case it will usually be accompanied by the notation “needs reference”).

I generally use links to reference my factual statements in my DU articles (OPs), and sometimes my links are to Wikipedia articles. I do that when I believe that the Wikipedia article is the best reference I have found. But I rarely if ever link to a Wikipedia article if the information that I am referencing from Wikipedia is backed up by an on-line source, because in that case it is almost always preferable to link to the original on-line source. However, if the Wikipedia information that I wish to reference is backed up by a source that is not on-line or by no reference at all, then I will link to the Wikipedia article.

Other than using Wikipedia as a direct reference source, I sometimes find it useful as a starting point to lead to other information. Since there are so many different editors that typically contribute to a single Wikipedia article, their articles often give a very good broad overview of current thinking on the subject, along with numerous references.


Advantages that Wikipedia articles generally have over most other information sources

Keep in mind when I speak of these “advantages”, that doesn’t imply that better sources may not exist. My use of the word “advantage” is general, is relative to most other sources of information, and may not apply at all for some articles:

Verifiability
One of the major principles that Wikipedia uses is “verifiability”. Wikipedia policy states that “Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed”.

That of course begs the question, what is a “reliable source”? Here is some of what Wikipedia says about “reliable sources”:

Articles should be based upon reliable published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources. In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.

Some DUers will object that so-called mainstream newspapers, for example, are not reliable sources. That is often a valid point – a point that I myself have often made. However, almost everyone who writes articles, including us on DU, quotes from mainstream newspapers when we believe it is useful to our article to do so. At least the reader knows where the quote came from and can check it out further if he or she wishes to do so.

Why do I say that this verification process represents an advantage over most (though certainly not all) other information sources? It is simply that most articles that I read on the Internet or newspapers or magazines (or watch on TV) back up less of their factual statements with references than what I generally find on Wikipedia. If anyone disagrees with that statement I would like to hear it.

Neutral point of view
A so-called “neutral point of view” is of course very difficult to define. Here are some of the relevant points that Wikipedia makes about it:

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view… The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one…. The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints…. Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view…. Articles should provide background on who believes what and why… Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) – what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence.

If this description of “neutral point of view” is not perfectly clear, that is because this is a very complex subject. I believe that the key words and phrases in this description are “fairly”, “undue weight”, and “bias”. But these too are words and phrases that can be very difficult to agree on.

For example, since I am a liberal it is possible or even likely that most people would consider my writing to be biased in a liberal direction. Yet, I try to write from a neutral point of view by clearly differentiating the facts that I present from my opinions, and by documenting what I consider to be facts. Part of my liberal thinking includes my belief that most U.S. military interventions are unjustified and that poor people generally deserve better in life than what they have. I sometimes state those beliefs as opinions, but I also often try to back up those opinions with documented facts. Does that mean that my writing is not “fair”, gives “undue weight” to the value of avoiding war, or is biased towards poor people? I don’t think that it does, but I’m sure that many would disagree.

Anyhow, the good thing about Wikipedia’s policy of “neutral point of view” is that it gives us a good idea of the prevalent points of view on an issue, and it also means that the Wikipedia editors are forced to be very careful about sticking to the facts and omitting their own opinions from their writing. When I’m researching a topic I generally just want to know the facts and don’t care much about the personal opinions of the sources.

The “work in progress” principle and consensus
Part of the source of the condescension that some people show for Wikipedia is based on the fact that there are so many editors involved in many or most of their articles. This can create somewhat of a chaotic process, and usually results in articles being changed from time to time. Some people see this as a process that results in serious flaws in Wikipedia articles. But I look at it as an advantage rather than as a flaw.

The “work in progress” principle
How can we have confidence in an article that could say something very different tomorrow and might have said something very different yesterday? Well, consider it a self-corrective process. Most articles never change their content. That means that if there are flaws in them, those flaws stay there. But Wikipedia has a process for correcting flaws. Here is what Wikipedia says about that:

One of the great advantages of wikis is that incomplete or poorly written first drafts of articles can, over time, evolve into masterpieces through collaborative editing. Wikipedia is a reference work, but it is also perpetually a work in progress.

Why is it a good thing for something to be a “work in progress”? It is simply that most articles are finished when they are written and therefore have no chance for improvement. Many articles are excellent to begin with and therefore are not in need of much improvement. That applies to some Wikipedia articles as well as to some other articles. But at least with Wikipedia articles there is a built in process for removing flaws over time.

Consensus
Additionally, the facts that Wikipedia articles are worked on by numerous editors and that they use the consensus process provide additional safeguards for ensuring that articles are accurate. Here is part of what they say about the “consensus” process:

Consensus is part of a range of policies on how editors work with others, and part of the Fourth pillar of Wikipedia code of conduct. Editors typically reach a consensus as a natural and inherent product of wiki-editing… Consensus discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons… Consensus is not simple agreement… Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are considered… in the hope that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views.

Consensus is a process. It is not simply a matter of taking the average view and using that as the “truth”. For example, consider 100 editors trying to work out a consensus on how many Iraqis have been killed as a result of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. Suppose that the initial average estimate of the ten people is 50,000, with one person believing the true number to be 1.2 million. Obtaining consensus involves discussion and argument. If that one editor has more convincing information than the 99 others, the eventual consensus could end up at 1.2 million, rather than with the initial average. That is why the consensus process often results in better information than what people could arrive at individually, even when a very “reputable” editor makes all the decisions.

The actual Wikipedia article on the subject of Iraqi war deaths presents several different estimates. Included in those estimates are the statement, “In December 2005 President Bush said there were 30,000 Iraqi dead”, as well as the results and methods of several studies, some which demonstrated totals of over a million deaths. The reader can read in Wikipedia how the various estimates were obtained or look up the original sources and develop his or her own opinions.


My opinion of the biggest limitation of the Wikipedia process

Perhaps the most important limitation of the Wikipedia process is a result of its insistence on sticking to so-called “reliable” sources. Of course it’s good to have a process in place for ensuring accurate information. But how does one determine if a source is “reliable? Wikipedia does have guidelines for that, but are those guidelines sufficient? For example, is there sufficient awareness of the bias inherent in our corporate owned news media? I don’t believe there is, though I can’t prove that. Wikipedia says that self-published books may be acceptable as references if written by “established experts”. But what about the corporate bias in determining who are “established experts”?

If you really want to determine the validity of a source, there are in many cases more important considerations than the so-called reputation of the source. As an epidemiologist, I have often participated in the review process of submitted manuscripts, and I can say without hesitation that one can often find better articles in obscure medical journals than in the most “reputable” ones. There are many considerations that go into determining the validity of a scientific (or any other) article, it takes a lot of time to consider all the relevant issues, and perhaps the Wikipedia editors don’t usually do that.

Consider the issue of the 9/11 attacks as an example. To their credit, the Wikipedia editors do mention that there are conspiracy theories that challenge the accepted version of events. But in my opinion that part of the Wikipedia article on the subject gives the alternative versions very short shrift (but let’s not discuss that here, since I don’t want to see this post go to the dungeon). Perhaps that’s because of too much emphasis on maintaining a “neutral point of view” or accepting only “reliable” sources.


Summary

In summary, I often find Wikipedia to be a very valuable resource, and I believe that the condescending attitude that some people show towards it is misplaced. It is meticulous about documenting its sources, it sticks to the facts and strives to clearly label opinions as opinions, and it has processes in place to achieve objectivity and avoid bias.

I look at the fact that numerous editors are used for individual articles as a strength rather than as a weakness. So-called “reputable” sources of information use much fewer editors, who are often highly paid and “professional”. But consider who pays them and what biases might be involved in that fact. I would take numerous unpaid, non-professional editors any day over a single professional editor who is paid by a corporation whose financial interests may interfere with its ability (or motivation) to evaluate and present information in an unbiased manner.

The validity of Wikipedia articles is limited by some of the same factors that interfere with the validity of any articles, including the difficulties of determining what constitute “reliable” sources of information. Most important, there may be too much emphasis on relying on corporate or government propaganda in making those determinations.
Discuss (91 comments) | Recommend (+47 votes)
The Unfulfilled Promise
The Unfulfilled Promise of the American Dream: The Widening Gap between the Reality of the United States and its Highest Ideals




Time for change


Notwithstanding the lofty sentiments and purpose of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the reality of the United States of America did not then – and never has – lived up to its ideal. Our nation remains today a long way from fulfilling the promise implied by those ideals. Yet, our Declaration was a great start, and it has long shone as a beacon of hope for people all over the world.

Throughout our history, while many have striven to close the gap between our highest ideals and the reality of our nation, others have focused on the accumulation of private wealth and power, at the expense of everyone else. In recent decades the latter have gained much ground, leading to increasing imperialism abroad and deteriorating democracy at home, characterized by routine (and legal) bribery of our public officials, the fusion of government and private corporate interests (corporatocracy), a corrupt election system largely in the hands of private corporations, a corporate controlled communications media, and the widespread acceptance of Executive Branch secrecy, routinely justified with little if any questioning, by the magic words “national security”. All of this is rapidly turning our country from the democracy proclaimed at our founding into a plutocracy (government by the wealthy and for the wealthy). The result is the most obscene wealth gap our country has ever known, the highest imprisonment rate in the world, rampant militarism, routine flaunting of international law, the least efficient health care system in the developed world, a pending environmental catastrophe that threatens to destroy the life sustaining forces of our planet, and myriad other problems that threaten to destroy our nation and tyrannize our people.

My new book, The Unfulfilled Promise of the American Dream – The Widening Gap between the Reality of the United States and its Highest Ideals, explores the roots and consequences of the demise of our democracy, and why most Americans have been unable to understand this process or even become aware of it. A good understanding of why and how we have deviated so greatly from the ideals of our nation is the first and necessary step towards getting back on the right track and revitalizing our society.

The book is currently being sold in electronic PDF format and can be purchased at http://www.unfulfilledpromise.com/Buy-the-... for $3.99. It will also soon be available in Amazon Kindle format. DU members who cannot afford to buy the book but would like to read it can pm me with your e-mail address, and I will send you a free PDF copy.

I’ve previously posted on DU a slightly earlier version of the introduction to the book, which is also posted at my site. Here is the Table of Contents, followed by a brief description of the three parts of the book:


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction
Acknowledgements
Prologue – What is Wrong with the United States of America?

Part I – Root Causes of the Impending Demise of American Democracy
Chapter 1 – Legalized Bribery
Chapter 2 – Human Psychological Factors
Chapter 3 – Corporatocracy
Chapter 4 – Corporate Control of Media
Chapter 5 – Corrupt Election System
Chapter 6 – Government Secrecy
Chapter 7 – American Exceptionalism

Part II – A Sampling of Imperialist Actions
Chapter 8 – Slavery and its Legacy
Chapter 9 – Early U.S. Imperialism
Chapter 10 – U.S. Imperialism in Cold War
Chapter 11 – Iraq War and Occupation
Chapter 12 – Afghanistan War

Part III – Consequences
Chapter 13 – Election of George W. Bush
Chapter 14 – War and Imperialism
Chapter 15 – Class Warfare
Chapter 16 – Predator Financial Class
Chapter 17 – Shock Therapy
Chapter 18 – Contempt for Int. Law
Chapter 19 – The “War on Drugs”
Chapter 20 – Climate Change
Chapter 21 – “War on Terror”
Chapter 22 – Health Care
Chapter 23 – Unaccountable government
Chapter 24 – Response to 9/11 Attacks
Epilogue


PART I – Root Causes of the Impending Demise of American Democracy

It is somewhat difficult to separate the causes of our problems from their consequences, since they combine to form a long chain of cause leading to consequence, leading to more consequences, etcetera. Nevertheless, it seems worth while to identify the root causes of our problems, those that occur early in the chain and lead to so many of the tragic consequences we see today. The only chance we have of reversing the demise of our democracy is through addressing and attacking its root causes.

At the top of the list is the systematic bribery of public officials by the powerful corporations (Chapter 1) whom our government is charged with regulating in the public interest. Instead of calling it bribery, we call it “campaign contributions”, but what we call it isn’t as important as what it is. It is hard to fathom how democracy can survive when such a practice is legal and condoned.

Working in tandem with our system of legalized bribery is the nature of the people who inhabit our country. That is not to say that Americans are inherently substantially different than any other people. Human beings are imperfect, and that is probably a major reason why in a world where civilization began more than five millennia ago, the oldest written national framework of government in the world today – the Constitution of the United States of America – is only a little more than two and a quarter centuries old. Chapter 2 explores the roles of basic human needs, authoritarianism, psychological defense mechanisms used to prevent us from perceiving reality as it is rather than as we’d like it to be, and corrupted ideologies in causing us to passively accept the accumulation of power in the hands of ambitious and ruthless individuals who care about little else than expanding their own wealth and power.

When bribery of public officials is tolerated as an inevitable aspect of public life, government inevitably grows close to the wealthy interests that shower it with money in return for legislative and other favors. A malevolent symbiosis grows between the state and corporate power, resulting in rule by an oligarchy that is highly detrimental to the lives of ordinary people (Chapter 3). Using their accumulated wealth and power to manipulate our legislative process, the oligarchy grabs for more and more control of the communications media (Chapter 4) that are used to control the information available to and shape the attitudes of our nation’s people, in pursuit of their own narrow interests.

Since the 1980s an orchestrated campaign has been underway to demonize “big government”, thereby paving the way for private corporate control over more and more functions that were previously deemed intrinsic functions of government. Among those functions is the running of public elections (Chapter 5) – the function that symbolizes democracy perhaps more than any other single function. Consequently, the purging of selected registered voters from our computerized voter rolls has become a routine recurring event throughout much of our country, and without a doubt determined the results of the 2000 – and probably 2004 as well – presidential election. Just as bad, more and more of the counting of votes in our public elections have been turned over to private corporations, which count our votes using electronic machines using secret software to produce vote counts that cannot be verified by anyone.

Bribery, the fusion of government and private interest, fake and biased news, and corrupt elections are not things that government and its corporate allies want us to know about. Consequently, they construct walls of secrecy (Chapter 6) to keep us from obtaining information that sheds light on their activities. The perfect phrase for facilitating this is “national security”. When our government tells us that the “national security” requires that certain things be kept secret from us, the understanding is that to question such a pronouncement is unpatriotic, and to actually attempt to obtain the “secret” information may be treasonous.

But indefinitely maintaining secrets from the American people can be very difficult, because at least some people want to know what their government is up to. So in addition to the formal mechanisms of secrecy, informal mechanisms are constructed (Chapter 7) to keep vital information away from us. One of the primary methods for doing this is to make certain sensitive subjects taboo – that is, to create the widespread belief that discussion of these topics is so outside the bounds of acceptable human discourse that anyone who discusses them should be shunned by society, or worse. The most common issue that falls into this category is any discussion that sheds light on the disparity between American ideals and the reality of life in our country today.


PART II – A Sampling of Imperialist Actions in U.S. History

Notwithstanding the fact that our founding document says that “all men are created equal” and speaks of the inalienable rights of humankind, the United States has throughout its history partaken of massive exploitation of other peoples.

It is estimated that at the time of our birth, 18% of our population was black slaves. In our expansion westwards during the late 18th and 19th centuries, we decimated the original inhabitants of our continent, and often treated them with great cruelty. In 1846 we manufactured an excuse for war with our neighbor Mexico, in which we continued to expand our country westwards and southwards. In 1893 we began our overseas imperialism with the conquest of Hawaii. Our overseas expansion was greatly accelerated in 1898 with our participation in the Spanish-American War, which led to our conquest of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. With our arrival at world superpower status at the end of World War II, we began the Cold War, which led to and served as a rationalization for covert and/or direct military actions against myriad foreign nations over the next 46 years. With the September 11, 2001 attacks on our country, we declared a perpetual “War on Terror”, which served and continues to serve as an excuse to invade and occupy Iraq and Afghanistan, nations that posed no threat to us. We do not know when or if this perpetual war will ever end. We don’t know how many additional imperial conquests it will lead to.

Most Americans don’t think much about all this. Many of these actions are done in secrecy, and the American people don’t find out about them until many years later – or we never find out about them at all. Those that we do know about are spun into the most favorable light, to make them seem benign or even noble.

But these actions come at great costs: in the lives of our soldiers; in the ruined lives of the peoples of the victim countries; in trillions of dollars cost to our people and their future generations; in our international reputation; in anti-American hatred leading to terrorism; and, to our democracy itself. For how can a nation claim to believe in the inalienable rights of humankind specified in its founding document, while making a mockery of that belief in the way it treats other peoples? For that reason alone it is worth while to take a brief look at our long history of imperialist actions.


PART III – Consequences

In the Prologue I give a brief account of what I see as some of the worst and tragic consequences of the root causes that I discuss in Part I – to enable the reader to see where this book is heading. When elections of our public officials are for sale to the highest bidder… when our public officials are so addicted to the “campaign contributions” of their wealthiest constituents that they develop a symbiotic relationship with them… when our communications media are owned and controlled by an oligarchy of wealthy elites… when our citizenry lack the ability to differentiate propaganda from reality… when we allow machines provided by private corporations to count our votes using secret electronic software… then we should expect that the consequences will not be pretty or comfortable for the vast majority of our citizens.

In Part III, I explore those consequences in much greater detail, in the hope that the reader will agree with me that these are very serious problems, and that they must be successfully addressed if our country is ever to fulfill the promise of its ideals, or even make progress in that direction. When enough Americans recognize our problems as problems, stripped of the gloss and spin put on them by our oligarchy, they will rise up and do something about them. Until then there will be no progress, and we are very likely to head in the direction of all the former empires of our planet, ending in chaos, widespread catastrophe, suffering, and ignominy.

Profile Information
Time for change
Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your ignore list
DU Donor DU Donor
12554 posts
Member since Thu Dec 2nd 2004
Silver Spring, MD, US
Male
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
The Usual Suspects
Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
StarStar
AlienGirl has passed away
16 recs : By Contrary1
Star
My Forums
Democratic Underground forums and groups from my "My Forums" list.
Random Journal
Random Journal
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.