The Internet is not forever

"The internet never forgets" is one of those commonplaces used to instill fear, but also to comfort. Just remember the right Google keywords, we think, and we can find anything.

This is not true. Various algorithms will bury that crucial web page after only a month's time.

And human control can bury information, too.

I say this because Wikipedia is now considering for deletion its article on the short-lived journal The New Pantagruel. This would be a loss for everyone in its ambit, not just those of us who contributed.

My source suggests there are possible political motivations at work in the proposal to delete. He was not specific, but tNP former editor Caleb Stegall did represent Kansas Attorney General Phil Kline in a contentious abortion case.

Pope/La Sapienza Controversy Fueled by Wikipedia

It just keeps getting worse for the protesters who shut down the papal visit to La Sapienza in Rome. They did not only quote out of context Pope Benedict's analysis of diffident contemporary philosophy. No, they quoted out of context a factually erroneous Wikipedia excerpt of the Pope's analysis of diffident contemporary philosophy.

Catholic News Agency summarizes:

L’ Osservatore [Romano] maintained that if any of the professors had checked the facts before signing the letter, “they would have realized that the author took the quote from a discourse by Ratzinger that is found under the title ‘Papa Benedetto XVI’ at Wikipedia.org, the online encyclopedia that is edited by internet users and that no man of science would use as an exclusive source for his research, unless he checked the veracity of the content.”

“That Wikipedia in all likelihood is the source of the quote is evident by the fact that the letter from the 67 professors makes reference to a speech by Cardinal Ratzinger on March 15, 1990 in Parma. The speech was given, but it took place in Rome, at La Sapienza University on exactly that day,” L’ Osservatore continued. “The surprising thing is that whoever took the quote from Feyerabend could not have read the rest of the entry in Wikipedia, as he would have realized that the meaning of Ratzinger’s statement is exactly the opposite of what the 67 claimed the Pope was saying.”

That the original remarks took place at the same university, but were attributed to another venue, is simply embarrassing.

That Wikipedia was considered authoritative by these would-be intellectuals is downright mortifying.

"All I need to know about Pope Benedict I learned from a drunken reading of Wikipedia" seems an apt summation of the superficiality of La Sapienza activists.

I am impressed that L'Osservatore Romano had staff or sources who tracked down the origins of this petty academic error. The Wikipedia origins of the information likely were discovered in a minor web search. However, that the web search was even made indicates someone at the paper has a good sense of how to extend a story in the Internet Age. These days, even a minor discrepancy of fact can grow into a newsworthy backstory.

Rocco Palmo and John Allen write of a revolution at the newspaper, its leadership taking the paper in a more journalistic and relevance-seeking direction. This story especially is a sign L'Osservatore Romano is wise to the ways of the world.

Wikipedia vs. Human Nature

I often find criticism of Wikipedia more interesting than Wikipedia itself. Case in point, Jason Scott's speech on the Wiki project:

Jimbo Wales is a Randian Objectivist. This means that in his particular interpretation of that philosophical thought, he does not like to interfere, he likes to give general ideas, he likes to trust in people, and he likes that the truth, that the truth represents an honest objective entity that cannot be questioned. A is A. That is to say, if somebody says "this is blue", no amount of your stupid liberal whining is going to make it not blue. That's the theory behind that aspect of Randian Objectivism.

What he did with Wikipedia was, put forward a number of very simple credos: Wikipedia will have a neutral point of view; Wikipedia will always cite it's sources; Wikipedia will never be an original source of information; and then said: "Go with it."

[...]

When we look at something old (I'll leave it with this thought) when we look at something old, when you walk into an old church, when you walk into a place, and you find say a handrail, and your hand goes down, your hand goes down and touches the handrail. You do not find the hand rail up here, you do not find the handrail down here. This is because at some point, somebody who was a designer, who was an architect, looked at where human beings were, and put the handrail where human beings are, so that a hundred years from now, four hundred years from now you can still put your hand there.

That is an important design aesthetic, sometimes that is forgotten. Things where they forget that, for instance when language is written, which is full of hype and horror and whatever else, say in the 19th century talking about -- "oh, in the future airships will do this and there will be wondrous wires and you can..." -- those words are forgotten, they weren't designed for human beings, they were designed to sell a
product.

When Wikipedia started out, Wikipedia was designed for an idea, a theoretical idea. An idea of human knowledge edited by everybody, with no idea of how human beings actually are. Over time, Wikipedia is becoming an accurate handrail, it's letting people now put their hand where it is, and it's not the place that I think Jimbo Wales expected it was going to be.

via Deep Furrows