The Dis-Encyclopedia

Carleton Palmer ISALTA January 2007

As discussed during and since the Prospectus and Outline of Proposed Encyclopedia of Living Traditions in Art, (1) the Encyclopedia ISALTA project is meant to take advantage of current information technology’s sorting and retrieval capabilities. There had been no opportunity to implement the concept until ISALTA began to develop a web-presence in September, 2006, prior to which time other projects such as Wikipedia had evolved. Wiki software appeared to meet all of the criteria essential to the project, and has since been carefully examined. This paper reports on those findings.

The Wikipedia, operated by “The Wikimedia Foundation,” has grown to prominence on the Internet as an interactive, editable database which asserts legitimacy as an encyclopedic “free-content” information source. Articles can be made and edited by any user with or without self-identification. Articles and modifications are moderated by several layers of volunteer editors within a re-editing and veto scheme guided by an instruction set of guidelines characterized as “Five Pillars,” the first building-block of which is the exclusion of research. This disqualified the Wikipedia itself from performing as a repository of research into living traditions, but not the wiki software.

Since scholarship advances by peer-review, the notion of re-editable articles evolving into increasingly sharp and incisive documents as a result of the accumulation of wisdom seemed an appealing possibility. A version of wiki software was loaded to the servers of ISALTA’s webhost, and some articles were uploaded.

Although the program interface is so simple that any computer user can introduce material into the system, it takes time and effort to learn how to manage such a system, and several articles were submitted to Wikipedia itself as an experiment. Articles titled ISALTA, Encyclopedia of Living Traditions in Art, David Ecker and Carleton Palmer were submitted and shortly removed in the review process.

It was remarked as justification for their removal: “. . . neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability. What I want to say is that Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. If you and the projects you've created articles about are truly notable, then someone will create them. It's really hard to write about projects you're involved in using a neutral point of view. It's even harder to write about yourself with NPOV.”

These points, among many others found elsewhere in critiques of Wikipedia, are fundamental and problematic, and I was obliged to reply:

“Neutral point of view:

On this basis anyone who actually practices in a field should necessarily recuse him- or her-self from submitting to the Wikipedia because no such person could practice “NPOV.” Must that every “someone” who writes on a subject be an uninvolved amateur or merely ignorant? That is exclusive not inclusive, precisely excluding the remarks of those who are most knowledgeable on any subject.

ISALTA sells nothing and solicits nothing. All projects for decades have been paid for by the members themselves, who may petition governments or other organizations to finance specific research projects, not the organization itself. No one is promoting anything, least of all themselves, whose efforts are freely given to create new knowledge. We do not solicit, sell or advertise on our own website. How much more “neutral” can it get?

No original research.

This organization consists of around sixty Ph.D. scholars from NYU spread around the world. We are presently creating an independent site for electronic dissemination of their research conducted over the past thirty years fully understanding that Wikipedia is not a place for scholarly discussion or original research. It seemed to be reasonable, however, that such a universal encyclopedic tool as Wikipedia has become should be a place where people could acquaint themselves with the fact that scholarly activities are being undertaken by a legitimate organization populated with real people having significant backgrounds and biographies.

Verifiability.

A short time with any search engine will verify the legitimacy of the organization and the content of the entries made to Wikipedia, and one may verify its incorporation as a 401(c)3 not-for-profit in NYS for the past twenty-five years if one troubles to follow links to NYS government.

One can Google “David Ecker,” and Dr. Ecker’s publications will spring up. I have uploaded a bio of him to Wikipedia, and he has uploaded one of me. Are we restricted to writing about people we do not know?

Our form of scholarship is not a hot ticket item online yet. Books dominate philosophy, aesthetics and education theory. As more members’ projects which now exist only in analogue form are converted and placed on the Internet, that form of verifiability will grow, but most members’ scholarship can be verified online through Dissertation Abstracts if one’s library has a subscription. Members’ names and dissertation titles and dates are online. What more is required?”

Underlying the strangeness of this exchange is the fact that these articles were extinguished because I voluntarily identified myself as their author. No question would have been raised if I had used a false identity, against which there is no provision in that system, suggesting that far more self-serving activities are taking place regarding the Wikipedia than merely the auto-massaging of pseudo-editors entertaining themselves digitally. It is clear that characterizing such an enterprise as an “encyclopedia” is fraudulent.

The utility of wiki software to actual knowledge, although virtuous in its’ populist intention, is an obvious exercise in dumbing to the lowest common denominator, and the antithesis of the creation of new knowledge. Software of this type is effectively used elsewhere on the Internet to develop popular feedback from consumers looking for cars, movies or the latest novel, but it is dangerous to suppose that such information qualifies as anything but poll data, and it has nothing to do with scholarship. If one were to write in software restrictions and safeguards against the process devolving into a public opinion poll it would cease to be wiki software. ISALTA’s wiki experiment is ended, which may in fact strengthen the encyclopedia concept

The necessary database, keyword retrieval and dialogue features of a useful tool for scholarship are already present on the website in the forms of forum, chatroom, SQL databases and content management system, and adding a site-search engine will make the site itself genuinely encyclopedic. All of these will now be behind a security wall, since, having posted the above objection to the Wikipedia editorial decision, the ISALTA interactive features have coincidentally been attacked with advertising spam and pornography.

It has taken four months to set the electronic stage of the ISALTA website with props and scenery for the action that I hope will follow, and it is fortunate that the wiki experiment has extinguished itself before compromising the legitimacy of the overall effort.

(1) Ecker, David W., Prospectus and outline of proposed Encyclopedia of Living Traditions in Art