Upgrade your browser!

Skip to Content

The Truth According To Wikipedia

Google or Wikipedia? Those of us who search online -- and who doesn't? -- are getting referred more and more to Wikipedia. For the past two years, this free online "encyclopedia of the people" has been topping the lists of the world's most popular websites. But do we really know what we're using? Backlight plunges into the story behind Wikipedia and explores the wonderful world of Web 2.0. Is it a revolution, or pure hype? Director IJsbrand van Veelen goes looking for the truth behind Wikipedia. Only five people are employed by the company, and all its activities are financed by donations and subsidies. The online encyclopedia that everyone can contribute to and revise is now even bigger than the illustrious Encyclopedia Britannica. Does this spell the end for traditional institutions of knowledge such as Britannica? And should we applaud this development as progress or mourn it as a loss? How reliable is Wikipedia? Do "the people" really hold the lease on wisdom? And since when do we believe that information should be free for all? In this film, "Wikipedians," the folks who spend their days writing and editing articles, explain how the online encyclopedia works. In addition, the parties involved discuss Wikipedia's ethics and quality of content. It quickly becomes clear that there are camps of both believers and critics. Wiki's Truth introduces us to the main players in the debate: Jimmy Wales (founder and head Wikipedian), Larry Sanger (co-founder of Wikipedia, now head of Wiki spin-off Citizendium), Andrew Keen (author of The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet Is Killing Our Culture and Assaulting Our Economy), Phoebe Ayers (a Wikipedian in California), Ndesanjo Macha (Swahili Wikipedia, digital activist), Tim O'Reilly (CEO of O'Reilly Media, the "inventor" of Web 2.0), Charles Leadbeater (philosopher and author of We Think, about crowdsourcing), and Robert McHenry (former editor-in-chief of Encyclopedia Britannica). Opening is a video by Chris Pirillo. The questions surrounding Wikipedia lead to a bigger discussion of Web 2.0, a phenomenon in which the user determines the content. Examples include YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, and Wikipedia. These sites would appear to provide new freedom and opportunities for undiscovered talent and unheard voices, but just where does the boundary lie between expert and amateur? Who will survive according to the laws of this new "digital Darwinism"? Are equality and truth really reconcilable ideals? And most importantly, has the Internet brought us wisdom and truth, or is it high time for a cultural counterrevolution?

  • Views: 406
  • All Ages
  • All Ages

Related Media

  • Video:Amateur Bicyclist
  • Amateur Bicyclist
  • A kid learning to ride a bike forgets to steer away fro. . .
  • Votes 4.67/5 - Views 2467 - Comments 17
  • Video:The Internet
  • The Internet
  • Look hard enough, and you'll find your mom naked.
  • Votes 4.19/5 - Views 243 - Comments 1
  • Video:Obama's Not Exaclys
  • Obama's Not Exaclys
  • 1.) Selma Got Me Born - NOT EXACTLY, your parents felt . . .
  • Votes 2.85/5 - Views 50 - Comments 0

View All



Trouble playing the media? Click here to manually download it.

Rate This Video:
Rate it 0.5 Rate it 1.0 Rate it 1.5 Rate it 2.0 Rate it 2.5 Rate it 3.0 Rate it 3.5 Rate it 4.0 Rate it 4.5 Rate it 5.0

4.41 out of 5 based on 100 votes

Rating Results:
Earn XP by sharing this video!
learn more

Video URL:

Embedded Link:

Send This Video To A Cell Phone! Digg

5 Comments

Current View: 15 / Show all Comments

i.dunno : LVL 37: VP 4.5: said:

i.dunno

2 votes NegativePositive

92 days 21 hours ago...

i want to watch the whole thing...but thats 50 minutes...no dice (shoulda edited it into 4 clips or something). interesting topic none the less. another side point with technology is, is that we as humans, have laziness are our number one universal trait, with fear being next. we gotta change our habits.
internet ftw?

sato : LVL 20: VP 2.9: said:

sato

4 votes NegativePositive

92 days 18 hours ago...

what that guy says and actually what a lot of people say (or suppose, i guess really) about wikipedia is bullshit... it not what the users think or decide is true, it information the users have found somewhere else and included on the site WITH REFERENCES, if something on it is unsubstantiated u can see a little [citation needed} note. and not only that but both sides of every arguement are included, for example on the `sugar` article u can find both the sugar companies` and also the dieticians` viewpoints. reports of bias or a lack of expertise are clearly uninformed.

exploder : LVL 48: VP 5: said:

exploder

3 votes NegativePositive

92 days 18 hours ago...

5/5, very interesting discussion.

I hated that twat who was all promoting expertise and authority. He can go eat our collective shit. Wikipedia is perfectly imperfect. We actually have to think for ourselves OMFG OMFG. We might make a mistake, get fooled or suckered. He wants us to collectively put someone else in power. He would have us choose someone else to decide what we can and cannot read. Fuck him. We choose ourselves and freedom, after millenia of corruption and repression. At long fucking last we can publish ourselves freely. And each of us has only what voice and what respect we EARN. It is not artificially propped up by pretentions.

EG. Newspapers and TV news. Almost all owned by the same few rich elites. Almost all visibly corrupt. All very limited in what they can / dare report. And the only real purpose they have is to make money for themselves. How did that ever become some carte blanche authority and qualification for truth? If they were legally bound to any ethic or minimum qualifications (hahaha, impossible), then perhaps we could hold them to some objective standard, but they are just greedy businessmen making a living, and doing whatever that takes.

And then that suggestion that the internet makes it so you don`t have to think for yourself. HAHAHAHA. Out here on the wire, you have to think for yourself, or nothing makes any sense. Books (which I love and read many of) are almost always telling you that they are the final word, think no further, we are the experts, blah blah blah. Especially the texts / references, etc.. If that were true, we had it all 100% figured out about 200 years ago. Bullshit.

It all looks to me like the dinosaurs are getting pissed that they haven`t got the BULLSHIT market cornered any more. And good riddance.

Go Wikipedia. Think for yourself.

"The internet treats censorship as a malfunction and routes around it."

"You do not know our culture, our ethics, or the unwritten codes that already provide our society more order than could be obtained by any of your impositions."

"We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before."

John Perry Barlow
https://www.isoc.org/oti/printversions/1000barlow.html

slimshady8248 : LVL 32: VP 4.1: said:

slimshady8248

2 votes NegativePositive

92 days 2 hours ago...

exploder, I wholeheartedly agree.

In school teachers tell us "No never go on Wikipedia, it`s EVIL" which is complete bullshit. If you honestly can`t tell facts from made up shit then you`re an idiot that deserves to fail. Learn to think for yourself and decide whether or not the information is reliable or not. Just because Wikipedia can be altered by any dumbass with a computer, doesn`t mean the media can`t be altered by some dumbass with a rich dad. The difference is, the dumbass with the rich dad will skew the media into something that makes him get richer, while the dumbass with a computer has nothing to gain by it. Your choice who to believe.

That`s pretty much all I have. exploder pretty much covered most of anything I had.

Dirt Digger : LVL 42: VP 5: said:

Dirt Digger

1 votes NegativePositive

89 days 6 hours ago...

I`ve always found Wikipedia to be a good starting point, but anyone trusting enough to use it as a source reference for a paper needs to have their head examined.

Look no further than the discussion page for the Wiki article on PETA...

Post a Comment:

Avatar


The Spikedhumor Drawing!Spiked Humor Playstation 3 Contest
Prize
Entry Dates: 4/15/2008-6/15/2008