If I tasked you with imagining the most boring event possible to occupy a summer afternoon, you probably wouldn’t think of attending an academic conference in a subject area of absolutely no interest to you. The answer you give would probably be less fitting than that one though. This is exactly where I found myself a few weeks ago. After being coerced by coworkers, there I was patiently listening to the keynote speaker at a conference for incorporating technology into the classroom.
The first thing you notice at any academic conference is that distinguished professors act like absolute children during every presentation. The second thing you’ll notice is that the catered lunch is usually less than what you would expect given the registration fee. Lastly you’ll find that instead of listening to a speaker, you focus on one tangential comment that they make and ignore the rest of the presentation. Thus instead of listening to the keynote speaker prattle about whatever her talk claimed to be about, I thought about Wikipedia.
The impetus for this daydreaming was a comment that sent the audience into an uproar of disapproving head shakes and horrified acceptance. The speaker, talking generally about information, brought up the dangers of the internet and the promulgation of too much information which can confuse students. She lamented the current generation which now views Wikipedia as a source of knowledge and a reference. As a result, disgust from the educators in the crowd about the situation and disgust from me at their disgust.
From where does this disdain stem? For most professors, it is probably completely innoculous. Wikipedia tends to be one of the least formal works you can consult and often has errors or spurious claims attached to its articles. Also, many older professors simply reject newer means of information storage since they obviously were brought up with a dependence on paper books and articles and microfilm. However, I believe a more insidious philosophy accounts for this in other cases. The academic disdain for Wikipedia is paralleled by the State’s disdain for Wikileaks. On the surface both may appear strange since neither the misinformation on Wikipedia nor the true information on Wikileaks have been that damaging in terms of what has been revealed. This is because the damning aspect of a Wiki is not only the information itself, but instead the implication of that dissemination of knowledge.
The State views itself as Prometheus bringing fire to the lowly mortals. Truth does not exist outside of the watch of the State. In the eye of the government, statements become truth when spoken through the edifice of government. All other claims outside of this organization remain spurious until verified by the regime. This operation of government is quite independent of political party, form of government, and time except in severity. This of course is a method to control the populous. Wikileaks acts as a threat because it points out that the emperor has no clothes. It hints towards an objective reality independent of government. It exposes that governments lie. It exposes that governments are not omniscient. The details of the information need not be a smoking gun which will topple the entire structure of government. Wikileaks acts perniciously by eroding the holy façade in which the State drapes itself. It takes the bumper sticker “Question Authority” and turns it into a true warning that the official story released by a talking head is no different than any other piece of information floating around in the chaos of everyday life. Like all information this must be judged by the discoverer against his own logic, in context of the situation, and with reference to all other available resources. Governments fear the truth and people who can find the truth more than anything else.
Academics behave in about the same manner. Part of this stems from our current system where academia, academic research, and government have merged into some horrible Cerberus. This is not the entire story though this the duplicity and childishness of academics extends back throughout history. Many of the famous feuds and blunders of science serve as a testament to this. The other part of the story comes from the hubris embedded in all forms of the elite. Academics, just as the State, must see all knowledge first pass through their doors. A narrow clique of sometimes petty academics control the flow of the knowledge into peer reviewed academic journals and books released through major publishing companies. Wikipedia poses an identical problem to these people. It reveals that science itself is full of conflicting opinions and doubts. It reveals that scientific truths are independent of the academic world. It provides a way of sharing information and science which the mainstream has decided sometimes arbitrarily to shun or depress.
The true academic, the true professor who cares about educating a generation of students rather than training them like dogs, should be extolling the virtue of Wikipedia. A good dose of question authority and think for yourself should be present at the forefront of every class. Great intellects don’t come from assimilating data handfed to them. They are those who have radical ideas and challenged the accepted thought of the time. Wikipedia is a great resource along these lines. Those who refuse to acknowledge that are charlatans in an instructor’s skin.
