aTypical Joe: a gay New Yorker living in the rural South
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Hawk on Orlowski
Thomas Hawk responds to Andrew Orlowski’s latest Wikipedia screed (and consciously does not link to it; I do, while holding my nose). I will have more to say as I process the piece, for now a few impressions.
I’ve watched the same folks who doubt and quote and criticize Wikipedia continue to link to them. The site is bigger than its critics and should focus on continuing to develop the experiment rather than getting bogged down in a traditional media formulation of a problem.
Of course, the nature of the project is to listen to critics and respond - admitting problems where it sees them and making reasonable changes to address them - as it did in this case. That’s well and good and as it should be.
On Orlowski, Hawk documents one of his “moral responsibility” problems, which serves to illustrate the-pot-calling-the-kettle-black nature of these critiques.
The MSM - with its vaunted apparatus of editors and ombudsmen and ethics codes and J-school doctrine - has a problematic record of accuracy (to say nothing of moral responsibility) played out daily on cable channels, talk radio, newspapers and newsweeklies (examples chosen at random, and please remember that I am a fan of the MSM).
But, hey, this is their franchise. They set the rules so Wikipedia should live by them.
We can revel in our technical accuracy and still be lying. Politicians do it every day.
When a reporter - whether the Times or the local student paper - quotes our words, they choose the context those words are placed in. That context imparts meaning. Often the wrong meaning. When we tell our stories, we choose the context. With that choice the meaning can be more honest and more complete. Certainly it’s more authentic…
I like to believe that our broadening access to communications technologies means much of our individual rich authenticity can be captured, saved and shared. And if that means a loss of technical accuracy, I’m not convinced that’s a loss of anything worth saving.
So with Wikipedia I’ll stand by my wish for a new emergence of that old oral tradition. And enjoy its honest inaccuracies along with those presented each day by both the “objective” press and the “balanced” press.
