Growing pains for Wikipedia

TalkBack 12 of 110:: Next »; « Previous

Thread View
Flat View

A grain of salt: I read everything with a bit of skepticism. When I was in high school (in the sixties) I found several factual errors in textbooks. These discoveries made me somewhat notorious among the faculty. Because of this experience, when researching something, I try to consult as many sources as I can. But a multiplicity of sources does not guarantee a multiplicity of origins of the information. It is quite commonplace on the Internet to see the same text repeated over and over again in the links that one gleans from search engines. Also, since the Internet has given everybody the equivalent of a printing press and a publishing company, some of those everybodies are going to be as crazy as rats in coffee cans.

Unfortunately, this means that one should be armed with at least some knowledge of a given subject when one approaches the Internet for more knowledge. As a case in point, I tried to use the Web to research the origins of the Sumerian language. One of the first links I consulted from a Google search had many of the earmarks of a scholarly article written by a historical linguist. If I had known nothing at all of the subject when coming to this page except what such a page should look like, I might have been seduced by the author?s statement that the ancient Sumerians ?invented? their language from roots drawn from an even more ancient ?Saharan? family of languages.

I had heard of many families of languages, including Altaic, Indo-European, Sino-Tibetan, and even Nilo-Saharan, but never of a ?Saharan? family, except in connection with a supposed prehistoric ?advanced? culture that occupied that region before it became desert. There is a whiff of Atlantis about this notion. That and the whole idea of a people ?inventing? their language put me on my guard. I found no corroboration for this fanciful origin of the Sumerian language and culture anywhere else.

Although I have taken a cautious approach to the Wikipedia, I have found it to be very helpful and generally accurate; however, when I read an article on a subject of which I have little or no knowledge, I seek corroboration from at least two other sources. When doing so, I recommend following links to sites connected with Universities (dot edu sites). While this is no guarantee of accuracy, either, a site connected with a well-known and accredited university is likely to be viewed soon by peers of its author.

By the way, Wikipedia?s article on the Sumerian language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_language seems to be pretty good. Its comments on the origin of Sumerian and its relationship to other languages seem to agree with the other reputable scholarship I consulted.

I would conclude by pointing out that the accumulation and dissemination of knowledge has always been a collaborative and collegial undertaking. In that sense the Wikipedia is following in an ancient tradition. That said, I think it would be well if all original articles were signed. My ancient Encyclopaedia Britannica has initials after most articles indicating which of its contributors authored the entry. It might also be well if contributors made some kind of statement as to their particular claim to being an authority on the subject at issue.

Eric Dobbs
Richmond, Virginia, USA; Posted by: eric.d.dobbs@... Posted on: 12/05/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use