Is it True or Truthy?
Introduction:
Angry mobs of punks who destroy public and private property to show their angst against the government is a typical conception of anarchists. Thanks to Stephen Colbert, who decided to change data by updating Wikipedia.com with false accusations, this assumption can become a fact. On The Colbert Report, a television show, host Stephen Colbert decided to put Wikipedia to the test. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia which can be written and updated by the common people. It is free, easy to use, and easy to change. This means that anyone with a different opinion or thought on a subject is allowed to add to the definition. Colbert realized that if enough people change the definition of a certain word a new meaning will evolve. Many viewers have discretions about the site. Stacy Schiff, a writer at the New York Times writes, “Nothing about high-minded collaboration guarantees accuracy, and open editing invites abuse” (“Know It All”, 4). Jim Giles wrote an article announcing that Wikipedia has been compared to the Encyclopedia of Britannica and more errors were located in the Wikipedia. However, Michael Twidale thought people still find it “shocking to see how many errors there are in Britannica” (Giles). So how truthful are the definitions of this encyclopedia? Is it really worth using for credible information. What makes other sources, such as books, any more sincere and trustworthy? To check if Wikipedia’s definitions are misconceiving I have set out to compare and contrast the information to other sources. By checking the facts presented in the definition of anarchism I will see if Wikipedia is a reliable site for academic use or even personal indulgence.
Literature Review:
Wikipedia has many subtopics and links which help define a word and its history. For the word anarchism, Wikipedia has the origins of the word, the first anarchists and their perception of the meaning, and descriptions of the different kinds of anarchism. The first definition that appears under the word anarchism is “a political philosophy or group of doctrines and attitudes centered on rejection of any form of compulsory government and supporting its elimination”(Wikipedia.com).To test this simple definition I took two other dictionaries. One online, Dictionary.com, and the other a well-known book, the Webster’s New World Dictionary. Dictionary.com defined anarchism as “a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.” Webster’s definition is “the theory that all forms of government interfere unjustly with individual liberty.” So far my consensus was that anarchism is an idea; the thought of revolting against the government to obtain liberty. There did not seem to be much difference between the internet and a published book written by professional editors.
In 1962 George Woodcock wrote a whole book explaining his thought on the word anarchism. This source seems respectable due to the years of research that this historian put into writing pages defining one word. Of course he never defines the word in just a single sentence but it began to take on a new meaning. The history and thoughts that accumulated for the word are so in depth that defining it seemed impossible. Anarchism began to appear as more than just an idea, it was almost a religion which man abides to.
Woodcock writes that “its [anarchism] ultimate aim is always social change, its present attitude is always one of social condemnation…its method is always that of social rebellion” (9). He begins to contradict the dictionary definitions by saying that “mere unthinking revolt does not make an anarchist, nor does a philosophical or religious rejection of earthly power” (9). Woodcock also brings up the misconstruction that most people have of anarchists. As I stated in the beginning, anarchists are seen as destructive people and Woodcock writes that they are partly responsible for that assumption. This is where the innuendo of the word appears. The original view of anarchism was to fix and help society. Instead through their destructive actions, “their plans of reconstruction have been oversimplified and unconvincing” (13). So far the definition on Wikipedia does not seem to be missing out on much. It compares relatively well except that it may not go as in-depth to try and explore the exact definition. However, Wikipedia does touch on every subject such as the individualists who fought for anarchism or their philosophy on the matter. Peter Kropotkin, William Godwin, and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, whom are all historians on the subject, are mentioned in both the book and the website. Since the definition on the website is not four hundred pages long, like the book, it cannot contain as much information but can inform the reader on all the topics surrounding it. In fact the website links all the names to their own pages of definitions. In a sense Wikipedia gives a good overview of the word and its history.
Wikipedia does give the origin of the word in the beginning paragraph. Anarchism is derived from the greek avapxia which means “without a ruler.” Both Wikipedia and Woodcock inform the viewer of this and have a similar definition to back it up. Wikipedia writes, “in its most general meaning [anarchism], is the belief that all forms of rulership are undesirable and should be abolished.” Woodcock states, “thus anarchy itself can clearly be used in a general context to mean…the positive condition of being unruled because rule is unnecessary for the presentation of order” (10). In fact both are close in diction as well; rulership is either undesirable or unnecessary. So far Wikipedia does not have any information which it can not be held as untruthful.
I was shocked to read that William Godwin, a philosopher on anarchism, was married to Marry Wollstonecraft and had a daughter named Mary Shelley, the author of Frankenstein (Wikipedia). I checked these facts by reading into Woodcock’s book and found not only was this true but their daughter eloped with Percy Shelley, a poet who was a follower of Godwin’s ideas. After looking up William Godwin on Wikipedia I did not find much on Percy Shelley being a disciple to Godwin or eloping with his daughter. Maybe after a few more clicked links the reader may find this information but it seems much easier to simply obtain a copy of Woodcock’s book. Rather than search through entries on Wikipedia all the information and more can be found by reading a hard copy of facts.
Another Source which I tested the entry against was the book Anarchism: Nomos XIX. It is written by several professors who have studied Philosophy and Political Science. Their degrees in these special regions make them trustworthy advocates. I was particularly interested in John P. Clark’s entry of What is Anarchism when he begins to question George Woodcock’s definition of the word. Not only does he attack Woodcock but points out “simple definitions (Clark, 4)” written by Kropotkin, Proudhon, and Bakunin, all who are contributors to explaining anarchism. However, out of all the writers he gives most credit to Woodcock for attempting to define the three characteristics of anarchism, “a doctrine which poses a criticism of existing society; a view of desirable future society; and means of passing from one to the other” (Clark, 6). Clark goes on to write that “any definition which reduces anarchism to a single dimension, such as its critical element, must be judged seriously inadequate” (6). This would include Wikipedia’s entry on the word anarchism.
After explaining what anarchism is not, Clark attempts to define the word himself. His definition is much more in depth and extensive. “There are four elements to this proposed definition,” Clark writes, “…(1) a view of an ideal, no coercive, nonauthoritarian society; (2) a criticism of existing society and its institutions…(3) a view of human nature that justifies the hope for significant progress toward the ideal; and (4) a strategy for change, involving immediate institutions of no coercive, nonauthoritarian, and decentralist alternatives” (13). His definition embodies everything that previous philosophers have said but he combines them all to make more than just a simple definition. Clark writes this in hope to clarify the word anarchism which is what any dictionary or encyclopedia is trying to do.
Methods:
I set out to compare Wikipedia to other definitions by using dictionaries and books. First, I collected all the definitions which the dictionaries or books contained and compared them to Wikipedia’s. After reading more of the entry on Wikipedia.com I searched for that similar information in the books.
Results:
I was extremely shocked to find that Wikipedia’s entry was not wrong or even brief. It was informing and correct. However, the books written by philosophers were much more interesting, capturing the writer’s excitement and extreme curiosity in the subject. They were far more inclusive and educating.
Discussion:
So what is Wikipedia good for? Since all the information matched up rather well, my opinion on the website has changed slightly. It is a fast way to obtain information but just because one defintion matches up does not mean all the others will too. In Schiff’s article a user named William Connolley believes that the site “gives no privilege to those who know what they’re talking about” (“Know It All”, 26). Many philosophers and editors who have worked for years researching and specializing to write books and articles are being over looked by the quicker source of information- the World Wide Web. Overall, Wikipedia is as good as any other cheat sheet. It summarizes, picks out key points and explains it as best as it can to people who will not go out to obtain the original copy. A book can contain more educated thoughts in 300 or 400 pages than a website can. Maybe it is not as fast but it is a safer bet. Wikipedia seems like a chat room, a place where people can collaborate and discuss opinions or thoughts on words and events. For now it should not be used as a credible source because (1) it may not be true and (2) it is far more educating to actually read a book by a philosopher who argues his or her point in order to be published.
Works Cited
“Anarchism.” Webster’s New World Dictionary and Thesaurus. 2nd ed. 2002.
“Anarchism.” Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 18 Feb. 2007.
“Anarchism.” Wikipedia.com. 15 Feb. 2007.
Clark, John, P. “What is Anarchism?” Anarchism: Nomos XIX. J. Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman, eds. New York: New York University Press, 1978. 3-23.
Giles, Jim. “Internet Encyclopedias Go Head to Head.” 28 March 2006.
Woodcock. George. Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements. Ohio: The World Publishing Company, 1962. 9-60.
