I have mixed feelings about the Internet. I find myself constantly aware of Marshall McLuhan’s concept of “allatonceness” (the idea of being perpetually connected to a medium) because, let’s face it, I’m almost always online. This is not to say that I am necessarily using the Internet, but with DSL and an ever-present wireless line, we can’t help but remain constantly connected—a stark contrast to the days of dial-up. The ability to go from writing an article to checking one’s Facebook account is constantly present. With the click of a button, I can go from passively connected to actively connected.
This constant state of connectivity gives us a false sense of interaction with the outside world; in reality, when we use the internet we’re only interacting with ourselves. However, the Internet has great potential to further human knowledge and growth, and that potential is probably expressed most fully in Wikipedia, the online, public-written encyclopedia. Wikipedia is poster child for the Internet as mass-communication. It can be edited by anyone, and within certain boundaries (growing stricter every day) anyone can create an article and share their knowledge. There’s never been a better way for people so physically removed from one another to share their collective wisdom.
Although the Internet is a 20th century invention, Wikipedia recalls medieval times in its form and methods. In the Middle Ages, scholars would often create and keep a glossed text of an original material, usually the Bible, with their notes in the margins and directly over the text itself, thereby “glossing” it—expanding the material and contributing to new knowledge. The gloss would pass from one scholar to another, each contributing more and more. A welltraveled text could potentially represent entire systems of thought on a particular topic. This is the spirit of Wikipedia. Each user has the same opportunity to contribute as any another. In a way, we are continuing the medieval tradition of the glossed text in our digital age.
However, unlike the indelible notes in glossed texts of old, users’ entries are increasingly being deleted from the digital universe as Wikipedia attempts to address concerns about its legitimacy. The encyclopedia often comes under attack for its democratic editing process and lack of scholarly standards, but Wikipedia is not intended as an academic source because it, like other encyclopedias, does not contain substantial analysis of its topics. The online articles do not have a thesis or an argument because they are only intended to present a broad picture of what many users know.
No doubt, Wikipedia can be used in a negative way. The CIA has allegedly manipulated entries, Dow Chemical reportedly edited articles to falsify its history, and of course students happily plagiarize from it. But this is part of the Internet’s nature as a medium, and lying is as old as speech. Wikipedia represents the height of what the Internet can achieve: the democratic sharing of collective wisdom. Each time we access its knowledge, we perpetuate history.
