I’m always being informed that if I find something wrong on Wikipedia I’m supposed to “fix” it. Good god. How bullying, really. Let me free up my Mort Sahl indignation at the contemporary world here, for an instant. Why on earth should anyone have to fix and re-fix this bland-but-irregular, passive-aggressively smug, endlessly fallible, super-grudge-sensitive oatmeal-pavement of grindingly monotonous ‘resource’ that has smothered the internet and the very notion of authentically-sourced research?
I’m told I ought to be patient – and also cautiously respectful, for fear of the damage I might do to “my” page – of the powerful and hidden “Wikepedians”, as though they were some strange and distinct culture living within our own – like a science-fiction scenario where the Alpha-Centurians have set up on our planet, with a government of their own, employing many of us now within their vast bureaucracy – “We must fathom them and respect them though they are systematically rendering all our ice cream completely flavorless – they have their noble purposes!” In many ways Wikipedia has narrowed the vibrant chaos of the internet just as badly as Google or Facebook could ever be accused of doing – is it a greater or lesser crime to do so not in the name of secretive and profitable corporate imperatives but under the grand banner of “crowdsourcing”? With all respect to the noble volunteer army, I call it death by pedantry. Question: hadn’t we more or less come to understand that no piece of extended description of reality is free of agendas or ideologies? This lie, which any Encyclopedia implicitly tells, is cubed by the infinite regress of Wikepedia tinkering-unto-mediocrity.