Wikipedia can only be one piece of a broader, better internet. But I think, as a model, it's a good framework around how we can make things better.
1) Correct. Wikipedia is good at consensus, not dissent — but it still allows for the latter, but in the backend. It's a nice compromise.
2) Yes, but those editors' decisions are subject to review, appeal, debate, dissent, etc. You get institutional voices (politicians, government agencies, etc) trying to impose truth, but that tends to get overturned very quickly. The rule of thumb for most pages is incremental change, not overhaul. It means things change a lot gradually, Ship of Thesus style. So it does reduce the power of individual editors/contributors — which is a good thing.
3) The idea of Wikipedia being heterdox and not easily swayed to the 'politically correct' view is a huge asset, imo. Journalists are trying to approach the residential schools issue with sympathy and tact — as they should — while Wikipedia has leeway to be a bit more blunt and cold in its language. One isn't better than the other, they should exist as two sides of the same die.
I may write a longer thing about Wikipedia in the future!
Wikipedia can only be one piece of a broader, better internet. But I think, as a model, it's a good framework around how we can make things better.
1) Correct. Wikipedia is good at consensus, not dissent — but it still allows for the latter, but in the backend. It's a nice compromise.
2) Yes, but those editors' decisions are subject to review, appeal, debate, dissent, etc. You get institutional voices (politicians, government agencies, etc) trying to impose truth, but that tends to get overturned very quickly. The rule of thumb for most pages is incremental change, not overhaul. It means things change a lot gradually, Ship of Thesus style. So it does reduce the power of individual editors/contributors — which is a good thing.
3) The idea of Wikipedia being heterdox and not easily swayed to the 'politically correct' view is a huge asset, imo. Journalists are trying to approach the residential schools issue with sympathy and tact — as they should — while Wikipedia has leeway to be a bit more blunt and cold in its language. One isn't better than the other, they should exist as two sides of the same die.
I may write a longer thing about Wikipedia in the future!