What Kind of Loser . . .
writes a Wikipedia post like this? If you're ever really, really bored, and have Internet access, go to Wikipedia and hit the "Random Entry" tab over and over again. You won't believe the crap that's in there.
Anybody out there ever written a Wikipedia entry? Edited one?
Hey, wait. That sounds like a fun project for the New Year. Here's my proposal: CWRU alums, we write a Wikipedia entry on the beloved-by-all Jonathan L. Entin. Vandy alums, I say we write a Wikipedia entry on . . . the always quirky George J. Graham, Jr. This would be a top secret project. If you aren't a member of either of those groups, propose a name, or an entry, that everyone can work on. Like the man said, a group project.
Btw, if you can come up with a better Wikipedia article group project, we're all ears. And I don't mean that these articles should be written in anything but a serious vein. Just to be clear.
posted by Number Three @ 8:49 PM
4 Comments:
I've edited wikipedia entries. I find there are terms, concepts, and thinkers in the humanities where Wikipedia proves quite helpful (and there's a lot of crap as well, of course).
How about an entry on 'minimal definition of religion'?
Wired has a good article on Wikipedia here that I linked to because of the thread on my academic listserv H-Asia an example of which you can see here. Needless to say, the academics are a bit, er, conservative re: Wikipedia and its worth, and as most of the folks on H-Asia are historians they are very wary of something that's not officially academic and peer-reviewed. Which, of course, misses the whole point of what "peer review" means, as Wikipedia seems to me to be precisely reviewed, perhaps not always by peers, but by a web of readers who know quite a lot and maintain this site as described in the Wired piece.
I find it to be an excellent tool in teaching critical reading to students: in print or on-line one shouldn't always believe what one reads. It's extremely problematic when it comes to certain issues, for instance HIndu-Muslim tension in India (see the entry on the Ram Janmabhoomi but in many ways this reflects the problems with history-writing and creates good discussion points regarding what the truth is and how it is constructed. Contentious issues will continue to be so until they lose their political efficacy. So Wikipedia offers a living, breathing context through which to explore the soft spots in history, the bruises where we haven't quite healed or figured it out. I find it fascinating.
But I haven't been sucked in to make an edit or write a post as yet. Academics rarely have the time to do these things recreationally. Definition of a busman's holiday.
John Seigenthaler, Sr., editor emeritus of the Nashville Tennesseean and a one-time Kennedy aide, wrote a recent editorial (in the NYT? I know it got reprinted locally here) about discovering what was in his own entry. He was accused of being involved in the assasinations of both JFK and RFK, along with some other toxic stuff, all slipped in as if it were just inoccuous common knowledge. It had been up for months.
Hmmm. Someone who really likes Star Wars, knows how to post both pictures and hyperlinks, and makes precious few grammatical errors. Who do we know that fits the bill?
Post a Comment
<< Home