Wikipedia's 'Invisible Hand': More Right-Wing than Left (Le
Temps, Switzerland)
"By reducing control structures to a minimum, by advocating
decentralized conflict resolution, and by encouraging the emergence of a 'neutral'
community in which experts and amateurs are put on an equal footing, Wikipedia also
bears the imprint of a profoundly liberal ideology, often associated in Europe
with 'right-wing' thinking. ... Just as in economics, the 'invisible hand' will
always guide Wikipedia toward increasingly reliable information."
Why
do academics remain so divided over Wikipedia and its hundreds of thousands of collaboratively-written
articles? Beyond the debate about accuracy or the relevance of the online
encyclopedia, a deeper ideological malaise may be lurking. In our political
culture, which separates ideas and programs on the left-right axis, Wikipedia's
design remains singularly objective.
By
aiming to create shared digital property, including free content provided by a
collective, the online encyclopedia is a project of shared values typically
associated with the "left." Some might see in it the concrete
technological realization of a utopia imbued with Marxism: collectivism that really
works.
However, by
reducing control structures to a minimum, advocating decentralized conflict
resolution, and encouraging the emergence of a "neutral" community
in which experts and amateurs are put on an equal footing, Wikipedia also bears
the imprint of a profoundly liberal ideology, often associated in Europe with
"right-wing" thinking. The encyclopedia's success is based on the
promise of advancing knowledge through self-regulating market of free
contributions. Participating individuals pursue their own personal goals, sometimes
in competition, but they contribute to the general interest. Free competition
leads to the gradual elimination of error. Marc Foglia,
in his book on Wikipedia,
draws a parallel with one of Adam
Smith's 18th century theories. Just as in economics, the "invisible hand" will
always guide Wikipedia toward increasingly reliable information.
Many
academics who support the creation of a shared digital commons, a format for open
publishing, and democratic access to online resources, remain uncomfortable dealing
with such a liberalism of ideas, which run counter to knowledge backed by
centralized institutions like universities. Some try to place the debate in
terms of its performance; others see in Wikipedia a demonstrated success in self-regulation;
and still others focus on its limitations, pointing a finger at the
collaborative encyclopedia's failures, flaws, and abuses. But perhaps, as in
economics, it may ultimately be a matter of conviction to
the virtues and vices of free competition - and the hypothetical existence of
an "invisible hand."
* Frédéric Kaplan is Professor of Digital Humanities at the EcolePolytechniqueFédérale de Lausanne
