Getting to Know You, Biases and All
Shirky picks up the ?Bias in Wikipedia? meme. The problem is not bias in Wikipedia, though, as much as it isthe stubborn delusions that there exists such a thing as an authoritative, unbiased, objectivesource of information. Shirky complains that Wiki editors are largely white, male, and European; as if Britannica was ever a paragon of diversity. Since Johnson’s first dictionary of the English language took swipes at neighbors (oats: used in most places to feed the horses, but in Scotland to feed the people), our dictionaries and encyclopedias have always been biased.
In the case of Wikipedia, any concerned person can correct perceived biases, add new content, or provide new perspectives on existing content. With the Britannica, the correction and counterpoint happen behind closed doors, and the people in control of the printing press decide which bias is the most ?objective?. Many in the ?objective? media stillinsiston this closed-door process.
In the end, one of the most important values of communication is in getting to know other people. You learn more about people and what’s important to them by their biases and contrasts than you do by encouraging them to mask their biases in a cloak of objectivity. And you get a better context for interpreting the information they give you. Maybe if more people realized that history is written by people with agendas, we’d all be better off.