Wikipedia: the “open” encyclopedia where facts don't matter

Jimmy Wales1, Wikipedia's founder2, stated in his 2009 year-end funding appeal3:

“Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s where we're headed. And with your help, we will get there. ”

From aardvarks to zebras, atheism to Zoroastrianism, the Aeneid to Zhivago, Wikipedia is at its best on science, the arts—and the humanities in general.

However, where geopolitical conflict is involved, Wikipedia not only mirrors, but amplifies—open to editing by all, it is susceptible to accounts of history which are more "version" than reality. Nowhere is this more apparent than in representation of the Soviet legacy in the Baltics and Eastern Europe, where there is a concerted effort to proselytize the official Russian position railing against those seeking to falsify and revise Soviet era history to the "detriment" of Russia4; there is also vocal support of post-Soviet Russian interests in the near-abroad states, particularly the "frozen conflict" zones, including Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria. Collective memory born of decades of unremitting propaganda and historical fabrication competes on an equal footing with reputable accountings of the past based on verified facts. And so it is unsurprising that special interests5 have engaged their representatives to create Wikipedia content legitimizing their cause.6

Reductio ad opinionem

How is it that propagandists find themselves contributing to an “encyclopedia” on equal terms with the bearers of independently and reputably verified facts? Wikipedia professes to observe and enforce quality policies, chief among them:

• "No original research"—whatever is written should be based on previously published works
• "Neutral point of view"—all "significant" views are to be represented fairly without bias based on "reputable" sources
• "Verifiability"—whether someone "thinks" something is "true" or not is immaterial, all that matters was is that something was published in a "reliable" source
• "Reliable sources"—"How reliable a source is, and the basis of its reliability, depends on the context. . . . Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
• "Attribution"—"Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged [that is, real or manufactured controversy], or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material.... The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true."

In the absence of academic peer review, these are all governed by consensus. Historical facts and events are reduced to opposing opinions, variously sourced, to be represented equally in the quest for "NPOV" (Neutral Point of View). And so, Russia is entitled to its opinion the Soviet Union did not occupy and subjugate the Baltic states and other territories of Eastern Europe; the "nationalists" of those territories are entitled to their opinion. Only on Wikipedia® do proselytizers of Russian propaganda keep human knowledge safe from the nationalists, even to the adoption of anti-nationalist user names. This is little more than the old propaganda ploy of accusing others of your own tactics and behavior.

It is not without cynicism that we observe it is these "anti"-nationalists who most resemble the editors decried in a popular essay about the plague upon Wikipedia. Editors are denounced for pushing their point of view, but what else are we to expect when the facts of historical events are irrelevant? When all that matters is only what is said about history? Mouthpieces for the official Russian position are extolled as reputable historians in their Wikipedia biographies, listing their extensive works7; unsurprisingly, their critics are attributed to be biased nationalists. Meanwhile, reputable and deserving historians still await biographies appropriate to their scholarly accomplishments and academic stature.8. Edit histories provide audit trails for both articles and article discussions, but there is no indication in the final article of authorship or authors' points of view or agendas.

Wikipedia espouses openness and attribution of viewpoint, yet those two keys components—along with any litmus test for factual integrity—are noticeably absent from the final product.

We found our web page background at www.deviantart.com/osztapenko/art/soviet-wallpaper-600767985