Who writes history?

Wait a minute. Why is it that when I started on this assignment, the first thing I did was to Wikipedia Wikipedia?

Even though I'm told in my classes to never use Wikipedia as a source, it's still the basic starting point for me, and probably for most other students as well.

Why? Because it's easy. It's extensive. It's free. And if you're in a crunch for time- say, preparing a blog entry and wanting to look up that philospher guy who came up with the idea of a democracy of ideas- you're guaranteed to find something.

Never before have we seen an encyclopedia so pliable, so unlimited in its capacity (with over nine million articles in over 250 languages) and so accessible as Wikipedia.

John Stuart Mill

But can we trust the Internet's collective consciousness?

The debate between Wiki "inclusionists" and "delitionists" has raged since the beginning. Inclusionists argue that anyone should be allowed to post anything; the more entries, the better, as long as they're useful to someone. Who's to say what information is valid and important and what's not?

Meanwhile, deletionists argue Wikipedia will retain its credibility if it monitors the quality and relevance of entries. How could we possibly trust an article that anyone can put their thumb print on?

So now, in such a time of turmoil, maybe it's fitting to bring back some famous figures for the Wikipedia debate to hear what they have to say.

John Stuart Mill:: "My child, you must know that the only way for the truth to surface is through a democracy of ideas. Even false Wikipedia entries have elements of truth in them! Having a free exchange of entries and edits will help us to question why our own beliefs are true, and the more people that participate, the better."

Zachariah Chafee: "Information should only be valued if used in the search for truth. Any entry that we deem as slanderous, profane, or libelous should be deleted."

David Irving: "I don't know about Wikipedia...but I do know this. The Holocaust never happened!"

Now that we've heard from those three, I guess it's up to us to decide.

For the time being, I'll continue to use Wikipedia. Even if the actual content is questionable, it's a great way to access external links, for instance.

And in the end, I believe that the nitpicking between philosophers, inclusionists and deletionists will balance out. While everyone continues to upload as many entries and information as possible, experts will review and edit them for accuracy. The idea is noble: Wikipedia is a marketplace of entries that allows its history molded by the entire world, instead of an elite troop of academics or war victors.

I trust that the world is heading in the right direction.