Wikipedia and Holy Books Mis-analogy
It has been very long since I
came across a passage that I so totally disagreed with, lines that I felt were as
completely wrong on every front of this. The lines in question are from Jaron
Lanier’s book, You
Are Not A Gadget:
“Wikipedia, for
instance, works on what I call the Oracle illusion, in which knowledge of the
human authorship of a text is suppressed in order to give the text superhuman
validity. Traditional holy books work in precisely the same way and present
many of the same problems.”
So
what do I find wrong in that? Hmmm, let’s see…
Holy
books don’t hide their author? Really?
What has this guy been drinking? All holy books derive their “truth” by
claiming to come from God or some guy who claims to have seen, felt or
experienced God.
Wikipedia, on
the other hand, is by humans, for humans and of humans. The Wikipedia
philosophy of making it not-so-obvious as to who wrote what encourages you to believe
or question something based on your assessment of it, not based on the
“authority” figure that wrote it!
Besides, what “same
problems” does Wikipedia share with any holy book? When was the last time witches
were burnt or a jihad fought based on
anything anyone read on Wikipedia?
If just one
passage from an unknown book could be so wrong, imagine how wrong any communist
handbook must be?!
Comments
Post a Comment