Wikipedia strongly encourages intellectual satisficing.
Conversation
Replying to
You’re judging random curiosities by academic research standards. Basically, in 1988, a random nerd who wondered about a question would conclude “too much trouble to figure out” and move on without ever learning *any* answer. In 2018, they’d look up Wikipedia at least
1
1
3
Most random curiosity does not, and should not, seek more than satisficing. It’s better than knowing no answers, and better than trying to dive deep on everything indiscriminately.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing sure, but I prefer it to elites+illiterates condition.
1
4
Replying to
Well, if the standard is “satisfying random curiosity” then yes, Wikipedia is the best thing ever. But if the standard is producing more knowledgeable (the OP said “better informed”) citizens, I beg to differ.
1
1
Replying to
They *are* better informed. Just not about the things *you* think they ought to better informed about.
Things that will give them more agency and opportunities and community in their own lives. “Better citizenship” is your priority for them.
2
2
I think Nils and you are talking about slightly different things: his "knowledge" is more in line with how it works in soc-sci or philosophy, where you are expected to understand the heritage of an idea and how it responds to everything that came before it
1
Wikipedia does encourage people to acquire CliffsNotes-style overviews of things, which is excellent for maths and physics (the radius of the first orbit in a hydrogen atom needs no context) but perhaps less so for the kind of "liberal arts" knowledge that citizenship goes with
3
2
And I disagree about the context/history part. Wikipedia lets you go into massively long context bunnytrails. They just don’t stay on the paths academics think you ought to stay on for a subject, but jump around.
2
4
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
The literacy needed is not very different from literacy needed to navigate scholarly conflicts, and it’s a good thing that a broader group is getting trained on that, even if the edit wars are far less decorous
American Chopper meme about Wikipedia edit wars when
1
4
Maybe the form and visibility of wikipedia conflicts relative to scholarly conflicts is the problem... more alike if scholarly conflicts manifested themselves on public, widely accessible gossip bulletin board moderated by academics. Is a white supremacist?
1



