Mediaboss Marketing

This sociological rift between the professional academic community and the broad popular massesis, ofcourse bynomeans new, and not necessarily negative. There isundoubtedly adegree ofsocial logic inits formation and crystallisation. The problem ofthe profanation ofscience inmodern society, oversaturated with information, isquite acute. This needs tobefought. Wikipedia, due toits global prevalence and universality ofcoverage, was inthe focus ofthis rejection and struggle. But lets behonest with ourselves: when anintellectual needs toget primary information onatopic unknown tohim, over these twenty years ithas become habitual toopen Wikipedia first, only later referring toprofessional encyclopaedias, textbooks and articles. Thus, another social pattern isrevealed: where convinced critics use itwhen they consider itnecessary.

Another frequently heard accusation against Wikipedia (especially inthe social sciences) isits politicisation and obsession with the Western-centric intellectual mainstream, aswell asits denial ofthe social achievements, practices and narratives ofnon-Western countries. Weagree with this; there isasignificant amount oftruth inthis statement. Thus, individual Wikipedia articles (especially inthe global English language) can form preconceived clichs, which are then transformed into stable stereotypes ofpublic opinion.

This isalso related tothe serious imbalance between the various language segments ofWikipedia. Itmanifests itself, onthe one hand, inthe degree ofcompleteness inthe scope ofthe material: here, asarule, the global English-language version ofWikipedia ismuch more detailed than similar articles inother languages. They are often only abbreviated translations from the English version. This isespecially noticeable when the topic ofthe article isevents related tothe area ofone oranother language. Inparticular, afairly large number ofarticles inthe Russian-language version ofWikipedia, one way oranother affecting Russia, represent only afull orabridged translation from English, without original additional material reflecting the social specifics and historical memory ofthe Russian-language segment ofWikipedia.

The same picture can beobserved inthe German-speaking segment: anoticeably large number ofarticles about Germany onWikipedia are presented more fully inEnglish than inGerman. Perhaps the main exception tothis isthe French version. Regarding almost everything that concerns France and French-speaking countries, Wikipedia articles inFrench are original text rather than copies ofEnglish articles, and are distinguished bythe completeness oftheir coverage ofinformation and the scope oftheir scientific references.

However, over time, the situation innon-English segments ofWikipedia has begun tochange for the better. The Russian-language version, wecan say subjectively, isnow much fuller and better than itwas 5-10 years ago, when many ofthe articles were, inour opinion, intellectual trash. Inthis regard, itisinteresting tonote, ifwetalk about Wikipedias presence inthe post-Soviet sphere, that for afairly large number ofarticles onneutral universal topics (which dont address the topics ofpolitics and history) the Ukrainian version isoften more complete and original than the Russian version. Meanwhile, both Belarusian-language versions ofWikipedia (which each use different spelling rules), inour opinion, remain quite primitive.

Inaddition tothe completeness ofcoverage, the imbalance between different-language versions ofWikipedia istoacertain extent also related todifferences inassessments and conclusions.

Here is the original post:
Wikipedia 20 Years On: Intellectual Snobbery vs the Right to Know - Valdai Discussion Club