I trust most readers here would patiently attempt to point out to intellectual snobs who look down with scorn and mockery on those less well educated that their privileged status obligates them to act with responsibility and do what they can to broaden a community’s education.
One of the more insufferable intellectual snobs on the internet poured scorn on the public in general when he wrote
Wikipedia’s Editors Are Imbeciles
Wikipedia’s editors are, of course, the general public. The scholar who went on to call them dullards and add labels to his post that included disdain, scorn, stupidity, could have deigned to dirty his hands and correct the article himself. That’s how Wikipedia works. Anyone who sees a mistake can correct it. Some scholars would seem to prefer to sit back and laugh at lesser mortals than actually go to the trouble of sharing their knowledge and better informing them.
I am reminded of a 2005 study. If there is anything comparable that is more recent do let me know. I wrote some time ago the following about it:
Research that was published in Nature in 2005 showed that it is comparable in accuracy and thoroughness with Encyclopedia Britannica. There were round about the same number of mistakes in each. Wikipedia responded by correcting its mistakes. EB, on the other hand, responded with a furious rebuttal and even threatened to sue Nature or the authors of the research. But Nature published a pretty strong rebuttal.
Anyone interested who missed this study can follow it up:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html (and see related links)
I notice that the wikipedia entry has since corrected the photo in the article that made the scholar feel so so superior to the less well informed.
I do have to confess that this time I have not followed my own advice and attempted to point out to our gentleman scholar that he not only has the freedom and invitation to make a correction himself in the democratic encyclopedia, but some would even think he has a responsibility to do so. Previous attempts to engage the gentleman scholar have unfortunately resulted in him responding with vile insults. But don’t let my negative experiences stop you. (I have at times gently pointed out to the occasional person who mocks wikipedia out of ignorance that they themselves are free and encouraged to make corrections themselves.)
I should add that Wikipedia is far from perfect. There are indeed a few articles that seem to have been taken over by dedicated persons determined to undo any editing that does not agree with their own biases. I understand that there are ways to respond to those sorts of situations, but then one has to decide on priorities and time against the an every painful awareness of the shortness of life.
Neil Godfrey
Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)
- Can We Reliably Study Unique Events? - 2024-10-01 02:11:56 GMT+0000
- Are Historical Sources “Innocent Until Proven Guilty”? - 2024-09-28 22:47:59 GMT+0000
- The Conquest of Canaan: Observations of a Philologist - 2024-09-21 07:40:15 GMT+0000
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!
Yes, he takes some getting used to. The best thing that can be said is that he’s actually gentler and more forgiving than Martin Luther, which is an incredibly low bar.
Per vridar.org, Neil Godfrey’s work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Therefore in theory, just cut and paste his work into
• RationalWiki
• Wikipedia
and give the required attribution info.
Cf. Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else?
Not just in theory but in reality. That’s the point of creative commons: to facilitate the spread of knowledge and intellectual creations without burying the creator in the process.
I’m probably repeating myself, but what I find most amusing here is the fact that the transparent and free exchange of information in the open forum of Wikipedia seems to work pretty well, while the opaque and byzantine methods of scholarly peer review routinely fail in spectacular fashion.
• “Portrait of the Reformer Philipp Melanchthon – Lucas Cranach d. Ä.” Google Cultural Institute.
• “Théodore De Beza – British School“. Google Cultural Institute.
I have noticed this for a long time now. Many of those with University Degrees are completely brainwashed and cannot think outside the box they have been enclosed in. They have a form of cognitive dissonance which like those of strong religious persuasion cannot escape from, or at least that was what I thought until I read Norman Doidge M.D’s book “The Brain that Changes Itself”. I was trying to understand how it is possible not to even look at other people’s beliefs and ideas and this book does have some answers. All to do with the Brain’ plasticity and it can be changed.
As a novice Wikipedia editor I wanted to add Voltaire as an influential source for Thomas Jefferson as per his article (which then only stated):
One particular editor went on an all out offensive to block adding Voltaire as an influential source. I cited several reliable sources, but he demanded a citation of peer reviewed work by a historical scholar.
Finally another helpful editor cited: Cogliano, Francis D. (2008). Thomas Jefferson: Reputation and Legacy. University of Virginia Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-8139-2733-6. “Jefferson read the major philosophic historians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries – including Gibbon, Hume, Robertson, Bolingbroke, Montesquieu and Voltaire – and he endorsed their views on the utilitarian value of the study of history.”
And updated the article by adding:
I can only surmise that the obstinate editor shared a similar opinion of Voltaire as with the following writer:
https://zwingliusredivivus.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/39277174_10155959459214071_3011175496479145984_n.jpg
‣ Embedded image per Jim (16 August 2018). “Wikipedia’s Editors Are Imbeciles”. Zwinglius Redivivus.
The embedded image from above is not a screen-shot of a Wikipedia article, but rather a Google Search page.
• “Theodore Beza French Theologian – Google Search“. http://www.google.com. Retrieved 18 August 2018.
The displayed gallery is from “Google Images” and the image “Portrait of the Reformer Philipp Melanchthon” has been extracted from:
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAmLFnxtuY0 YouTube. Discerning History. 1 February 2016.
My god I think you are right! And I trusted a biblical scholar to be honest about what he was fed on the internet!
(I’m tempted to write and tell Jim myself but most times I’ve emailed him something in the past he has responded with a post telling a blatant lie about what I wrote him!)
the wikipedia entry has since corrected the photo in the article
· The current photo has been extant since 19 September 2011.
talk about hoisting oneself with one’s petard – this could result in a blowup
Jim (18 August 2012). “The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament”. Zwinglius Redivivus :
Sparkes, A. W. (1988). “Idiots, Ancient and Modern”. Politics. 23 (1): 101–102. doi:10.1080/00323268808402051.
Sigh! — https://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2019/01/20/what-people-think-wikipedia-is/