Blarcrean

In a relevant critique of Wikipedian history-making Professor Roy Rosenzweig took this enterprise to task not because it disregards the facts (in its coverage of US history it is found to be “surprisingly accurate in reporting names, dates, and events”), but because it elevates facts “above everything else and spends too much time and energy (in the manner of many collectors) on organizing those facts into categories and lists.” ^[1]

This is of course partly the nature of encyclopedias – they ‘give you the topline’ and are ‘the Reader's Digest of deep knowledge,’ writes Rosenzweig, who headed History and New Media at George Mason University. “Fifty years ago the family encyclopedia provided this ‘rough and ready primer on some name or idea’; now that role is being played by the Internet and increasingly by Wikipedia.”

It is in relation to this that Rosenzweig wonders whether professional historians ought to join popular history makers on this project. “My own tentative answer,” he writes, “is yes.” “If Wikipedia is becoming the family encyclopedia for the twenty-first century, historians probably have a professional obligation to make it as good as possible. … [if every historian] devoted just one day to improving the entries in her or his areas of expertise, it would not only significantly raise the quality of Wikipedia, it would also enhance popular historical literacy.”

He argues further that “If historians believe that what is available free on the Web is low quality, then we have a responsibility to make better information sources available online. … Shouldn't professional historians join in the massive democratization of access to knowledge reflected by Wikipedia and the Web in general?”

At the same time, he adds – and because students do and will use Wikipedia articles as sources – one has constantly to promote awareness of “the limitations of all information sources, including Wikipedia,” and emphasize “the skills of critical analysis of primary and secondary sources.”

Being interested in a geographic region that is relatively under- and/or poorly represented in Wikipedia and indeed in any generally available secondary sources, this user - who is not an historian, but works in a related discipline - is motivated to make contributions from time to time in order to help improve this situation. There is a laudable emphasis being given to local history in the new school curricula which makes this project even more urgent, since this good intention is not being backed-up quickly enough with reliable textbooks or other resources. For those students with Internet access, Wikipedia may be one of the few sources of information available at all. Rosenzweig has issued a challenge that surely ought to be taken up.

Rosenzweig refers to places where censorship of textbooks and other historical resources is common: in such situations “the fact that Wikipedia's freedom means both ‘free beer’ and ‘free speech’ has profound implications because it allows the circulation of alternative historical voices and narratives.” Where this user resides this is not as much of an issue as it is in other places^[2] – or is it?^{[3][4][5][6][7]} The principle is surely important. On the matter of alternative perspectives, Milan Kundera’s oft-quoted remark is relevant, that we live amid a “din of easy, quick answers that come faster than the question and block it off.” He was writing about the spirit of the novel – which, as he says, is the spirit of complexity, where “Things are not as simple as you think.” He might as well have been writing about historical research or scientific endeavour, which is propelled onwards, not by ready-made ideas and stereotypes, but by doubt and questioning. Research is constantly yielding new insights, new twists to the tale, still further refracted by current contexts and points of view. To over-simplify diminishes the necessary texture. Indeed, as Merleau-Ponty said, “ambiguity is the essence of human existence and everything we live and think always has several meanings.”^[8] The trick for Wikipedians is to find ways to convey something of the complexity and depth, providing pointers for deeper quests.

Our concerns should go beyond mere collecting and organizing of facts into categories and lists!

Many of this user’s own contributions are fragments and work in progress, personal and professional, and hopefully other Wikipedians will be joining both in improving the quality and in adding to the textures.

Blarcrean lives in the Northern Cape, South Africa.

Inter alia to the following entries:

Blarcrean's edit count