English 105.001
8 March 2007
Wikipedia Defines Anarchism
Introduction
In today’s society, gossip is exchanged within people’s conversations daily. Among friends, business workers and, of course, in entertainment we crave for fleshy pieces of information that excite us to help create discussion. But then again no statement is set in stone. It is almost impossible to define anything without years of historic or scientific research and even then, what is proven, is questioned. There seems to be an aware sign attached to every source of information these days. Precautions are taken and suspicion arises when people read new information or question what they believe to already know. It is easy for an old dictionary or encyclopedia to become an artifact. Jim Giles wrote an article where a comparison was done between an online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, and an older source, the Encyclopedia of Britannica. The results showed that the online source, which is updated frequently, showed more mistakes and errors than in the elderly source. However, an information scientist at the University of Illinois, Michael Twidale, reported that people still find it “shocking to see how many errors there are in Britannica” (Giles). So no source is ever completely accurate but it is the authors and editors duty to strive for that perfection, to educate the public. Wikipedia does this, or, at least they try to. This encyclopedia is on the world wide web and can be accessed by anyone. It can be read and edited by the public and common people. It provides definitions that are updated for new results, it educates, and it gives a lot of gossip.
Wikipedia is not only creating chat forums within its site but there is much to talk about its use in general. On The Colbert Report, a television show, host Stephen Colbert decided to put Wikipedia to the test. It was brought to the public’s attention that Wikipedia 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 a definition. Colbert realized that if enough people change the definition of a certain word a new meaning will evolve. This is what creates so much concern about the site; what is true and what is gossip? Stacy Schiff, a writer from The New Yorker comments on the site, “Nothing about high-minded collaboration guarantees accuracy, and open editing invites abuse” (“Know It All”, 4). 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 credible 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’s entry is long and filled with historical facts on the first anarchists and the different types of anarchism. It never analyzes anarchism as one definition, instead it drifts off into explaining the multiple views history has taken on this word. In fact in the beginning of the entry the writer states that “there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold,” and that the entry will try to characterize the different varieties and traditions of anarchism (Anarchism, Wikipedia). They do provide the reader with one simple definition which combines the thoughts that most anarchist believe. Wikipedia writes, anarchism is “a political philosophy or group of doctrines and attitudes centered on rejection of any form of compulsory government and supporting its elimination” (Anarchism). First, to test this simple definition I took two other dictionaries. One online, Dictionary.com, and the other a book, the Webster’s New World Dictionary. Dictionary.com defines 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, it is the thought of revolting against the government to obtain liberty. There does not seem to be much difference between the internet and any other source written by professional editors.
In 1962, George Woodcock wrote a book explaining his thought on the word anarchism. This source seems respectable since the author examined years of history on anarchism and created a book defining its purpose. The difference is Woodcock never defines the word in just a single sentence where as Wikipedia formulates a typical conception that most anarchist would agree on. This is fair when creating a meaning for a word, to look at all opposing sides and assemble the similarities, but Woodcock does more than this. He surpasses the simple thought of rejection of government and explains anarchism as an idea or an action. This noun begins to take on the complexity of a religion by which man abides. 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). Since a form of action must appear this leaves Woodcock to explain the misconstruction that most people have of anarchists. From the untamed, public displays of punks throughout the late 1970’s and as portrayed in movies, anarchists are seen as destructive people. Woodcock writes that they are partly responsible for this assumption thus creating the innuendo of the word. 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 simple definition on Wikipedia is not incorrect but misses out on the depth and, surprisingly, recent information. Even though Wikipedia does not notify the readers about the punks and anarchist movement in the 1970’s it does supply some history of the individualists who fought for anarchism and 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 support it. 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. More information is collected and presented in Woodcock’s book than what is shown on the one entry of Wikipedia. Of course, this information is not completely relevant to the definition of anarchism yet both sources incorporate it. Nevertheless, Wikipedia’s information, once again, is not wrong but less wholesome.
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. Due to their degrees in these subjects this seems to be a trustworthy source. 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 since they narrow the definition to base anarchism on just attitudes surrounding the rejection of government.
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 from the dictionaries or books 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 definition matches up does not mean all the others will too. Wikipedia is also challenging the older way of obtaining facts. 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. Credit is not being given where it should. 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 this reason it is acceptable since discussing or arguing a point for the better good of a word is educating and informing. 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.
Schiff, Stacy. “Know It All.” The New Yorker. 24 July 2006. 31 July 2006
Woodcock. George. Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements. Ohio: The World Publishing Company, 1962. 9-60.
