Wikipedia is a brilliant invention. Granting power to the hive mind of the world to collect all of human knowledge is one of the greatest feats of the past couple decades.
Unfortunately, that means that today we're living in a world where every piece of human knowledge flows through a single filter. A world where some 500 people effectively shape how billions understand their reality.
The Pattern of Centralization
Many of the technologies that came out of the internet's centralization killed the business model of whatever they were replacing. The music industry is a prime example of this.
Music streaming services centralized and cheapened the consumption of music. The art of music has become a commodity – just another standardized product where one song is considered interchangeable with another. This is how markets treat wheat from different farmers, as identical if it meets the same specifications. This is also how music streaming services think about the music you love.
The Loss of Album Culture
We used to have to buy an entire album to listen to a song, or wait for it to come on the radio. This gave more power to individual musicians. Songs that pulled people to an individual album often uncovered other songs that were even more unique and brilliant. If a musician had an entire album to fill, they had room to experiment and grow (B-sides). A musician could individualize, and shine.
Now, you can click and listen to singles for free. The platforms don't care what they stream, as long as they're maximizing those clicks. This advantages the songs that look like hits, like the songs that used to pull us in. But now we've lost the lasting classics that would have emerged. Instead, music has homogenized into a single pop song, as everyone races to the lowest common denominator.
The Encyclopedia Parallel
This same pattern played out with encyclopediae. When Britannica ceased its print edition in 2012, it marked more than the end of a publishing era—it signaled the death of diverse perspectives in encyclopedic knowledge. While having a single article about, say, photosynthesis might seem efficient, we lose something vital when we limit ourselves to one authoritative voice.
The Problem of Single Narrative
Just as social media algorithms curate users into "filter bubbles," Wikipedia's single narrative creates a bubble as well. Traditional encyclopediae, because of their diversity of biases, provided different perspectives that readers could compare and contrast. For instance, how the Industrial Revolution is presented might differ significantly between encyclopediae focusing on economic progress versus those emphasizing social and environmental impacts. These different narratives helped readers understand the complexity of historical events and scientific concepts.
The Importance of Diverse Perspectives
This diversity of perspective matters in every field. Pedagogically, you can go to two different lectures about the same topic and come out with vastly different understandings of the subject matter. Each author of an article has their own understanding and way of explaining their expertise. Even seemingly straightforward topics benefit from multiple viewpoints, or presentations of the same material.
The loss of competing perspectives has real consequences. Throughout history, how many times has a field declared that it was complete, only to discover entirely new areas of research previously considered "fringe"? Continental drift, the Big Bang theory, the existence of exoplanets, the germ theory of disease, the concept of an ancient Earth, and the atomic theory—all of these would have been edited out of that period's version of Wikipedia if it had existed.
The Philosophy Example
Take philosophy as an example. Different philosophical traditions have dominated different institutions and regions. A reference work from Oxford might emphasize analytical philosophy and formal logic, while one from Paris might focus more on phenomenology and existentialism. German encyclopediae might give more space to idealism and critical theory, while American ones might highlight pragmatism and cognitive science. These aren't just different topics – they're different ways of thinking about what philosophy itself is for.
But Wikipedia needs to somehow merge all these perspectives into a single "neutral" narrative. Even with the best intentions, some viewpoints will inevitably be emphasized while others get relegated to footnotes. This isn't just about philosophy – it happens with every field where different cultures and institutions have developed their own ways of understanding the world.
The Economic Impact
Then there are the economic implications. It's wonderful that knowledge is now free. However, the industry of encyclopedia writing once supported expert writers, editors, fact-checkers, and specialized researchers. This economic model supported a professional class of knowledge curators. With Wikipedia's volunteer model, we've gained accessibility but lost the economic infrastructure that supported diverse approaches to knowledge compilation.
The Power Structure
This theoretical concern about perspective becomes very real when we look at how Wikipedia actually operates. The power structure of Wikipedia itself is concerning. There are approximately 500 administrators for the English Wikipedia site. These administrators shape how billions of monthly visitors understand our world. These administrators define what truth is, and what truth is allowed to last on the site. Articles get locked due to politics or tampering.
The Risk to Truth
With one central place where people go to, and a relatively small number of people holding the keys, how hard is it really for powerful interests to tamper with "truth"?
We've already seen attempts by governments trying to edit articles about territorial disputes or human rights issues. Corporations regularly attempt to sanitize their histories. Political groups work to shape narratives about current events. Even well-meaning cultural and societal pressures can gradually push articles toward whatever viewpoint is currently popular or acceptable.
For example, an article about a controversial technology might start with robust discussion of both benefits and risks. But if enough influential organizations support that technology, criticism can gradually be labeled as "fringe views" or "lacking reliable sources." The same process can work in reverse – legitimate but unpopular perspectives can be gradually marginalized.
This same process happened to Copernicus when he proposed a heliocentric model of the solar system. The established institutions of his time – both scientific and religious – considered his ideas fringe and dangerous. If Wikipedia had existed then, his theory would likely have been dismissed as "lacking reliable sources" or edited out as "controversial." It took decades for his revolutionary idea to gain acceptance. How many modern Copernicuses might we be silencing through our centralized system of knowledge?
No matter how comprehensive any or all the articles are, they will never be as comprehensive as if there were competing encyclopediae. When knowledge is decentralized, different perspectives can develop fully without having to compromise or merge into a single "neutral" narrative.
Wikipedia is a noble endeavor, but I mourn the loss of a diversity of ideas that could spring forth if we had competing encyclopediae. When we centralize knowledge, we may gain efficiency, but we lose the richness that comes from multiple voices telling the same story in different ways.
Jack Reichert, November 17, 2024