Why Britannica Trumps Wikipedia (Thank-You, Stephen Colbert)
The satirical current events show The Colbert Report, which airs Monday through Thursday nights on Comedy Central, has a history of messing with the mainstream media to comedic ends. But last night, host Stephen Colbert went after Wikipedia. The results, as always, were hilarious.
Check out the video for the Wikiality segment on YouTube. Colbert encourages his viewers to change the Wikipedia entry for elephant so that it says the number of African elephants has tripled in the last six months. The result? Various Wikipedia articles referring to elephants, African elephants, African Bush elephants, African Forest elephants and the like were immediately moved to semi-protected status by the site's administrators. Pages with the semi-protected designation can only be edited by registered and trusted users. Colbert's Wikipedia user account was also blocked from making edits.
Watch the segment for yourself:
Sometimes Colbert offends me, but sometimes his use of insincerity gives a potent voice to my feelings about a subject. I've had a deep gnawing problem with the Wikipedia for a while--specifically the democratization of knowledge and the potential for the relativistic abuse of information. Here are some of the best quotes from the video clip linked above:
"I love the Wikipedia. Any site that has a longer entry on 'truthiness' [a term coined by Colbert] than on Lutherans has its priorities straight."
Regarding the mechanics of the Wikipedia: "Any user can change any entry and if enough users agree with them, it becomes true."
"Who is Britannica to tell me that George Washington had slaves? If I want to say he didn't, that's my right. And now thanks to Wikipedia [types on his laptop keyboard], it's also a fact.
"Together we can create a reality that we can all agree on: the reality we just agreed on."
You see, this is exactly why the Encyclopedia Britannica is better than the Wikipedia. I have a 15th edition, 1995 set at home and the 2006 electronic edition on my PowerBook. It goes with me just about everywhere. Britannica's entries are written by experts in the field and they are subject to a review board. With the Wikipedia the articles can be written or altered by just about anyone. And who knows if what's written there is true, false, accurate, or inaccurate?
If I want to write (or change) an article on the Wikipedia, I can just log in (or act anonymously) and write whatever I want. If I want to write an article in the Encyclopedia Britannica, I have to spend years becoming an expert in my field, become widely published and recognized for my expertise in the subject and then, maybe I will be allowed to write for Britannica.
The Wikipedia is great for information about anything relating to pop-culture, such as if I want to read about the latest theories and analysis regarding the television show, Lost. But if I want a starting place to seriously investigate a subject--history, science, literature, biography, philosophy, and even religion-- with an article written by a known expert, with an extensive bibliography for further research, I'll go to the Encyclopedia Britannica--every time.
Related previous posts:
- The Wikipedia is Not Enough
- Martin Luther Was Excommunicated on This Day and Why I Love the Encyclopedia Britannica