Tags: Rubric For College Term PaperLord Of The Flies Map AssignmentA Guide For Writing Research Papers ApaWhat Makes A Good College App EssayOpen Closed And Counter Argument Thesis StatementsProblem Solving Technics
Here, the ‘consensus’ is really only the agreement of a relative few people who, by chance, happen to be the only ones monitoring a given page at a given time.This means that the less popular a page is, the more likely it is to contain errors and bias, or, in the words of wiki expert Alexander Halavais, “The high-traffic areas are going to be the cleanest.” Even high-traffic areas, though, are not going to be free of bias if the topic is of a controversial or contentious nature.Christians should engage themselves in the debate online by taking part in the editing of Wikipedia articles to remove clear instances of bias (but not to attempt to introduce pro-Christian biases of our own in the text).
Since Wikipedia is essentially mob-rule applied to encyclopedia content, the prevailing view of the mob is going to determine the bias of the articles.
It is naïve to expect people to police themselves when dealing with topics they are averse to, like biblical creation.
When you consider who “the mob” is on Wikipedia, it is that subset of people who have access to the internet, know about Wikipedia and care enough about it to make changes on it—and additionally have the technical expertise to do so (since modifying Wikipedia is a bit like using programming language). Come to think of it, that is a pretty specialized group, isn’t it?
And would we expect that particular group to fit into any categories?
Who gets to determine what constitutes significant or reliable?
Well, the editors themselves, as it turns out—that means you, me, and literally anyone with a computer who knows how to edit Wikipedia.In digging through some relevant pages, I found some really cringe-worthy, egregious examples of this.In the Wikipedia guidelines section on ‘Fringe theories’, it says this: They didn’t even attempt to hold back, claiming that creationism is pseudoscience.if you ask a younger American how humans arose, you’re likely to get an answer that has nothing to do with God”).This all adds up to a stark and sad reality: Wikipedia is very likely to be hopelessly, terribly unbalanced in articles dealing with God, religion and creation science.But here’s the catch: anyone can also revert any changes made by another editor.This means ultimately that articles represent a ‘consensus’.A 2010 study on Wikipedia editors shows that the greatest number of editors are in the USA (20%), followed by Germany (12%) and Russia (7%).The only non-Western country in the top 10 was India (3%), which of course also has a strong Western influence due to the history of British colonialism there. The trend among younger people in the USA is also towards the acceptance of Darwinism and rejection of biblical creation according to a Pew Research Center report (according to one reporter, “ …The proper response to this is twofold: first, Christians and biblical creationists should lobby whenever possible against the rampant bias at Wikipedia and make others aware of it.How else can we ever hope to see a positive change?