Wikipedia: an incredible tool that requires incredible responsibility

The debate between Jimmy Wales, the creator of Wikipedia, and Andrew Keen, also an entrepreneur, was full of rhetorical discussion.  Wales essentially believes that everyone should have access to the knowledge of the world, while Keen feels the use of 'free' knowledge "undermines the value of intellectual labor."

The core conflict in the debate resides in the fundamental premises and philosophies of each man.  According to Wikipedia (haha), Wale's life is based on the philosophy of Objectivism first proposed by writer Ayn Rand.  This states that the individual is paramount, and that individual rights should never be sacrificed for the "greatest good".  Reward should never be based on need, but rather the value one produces.

According to the Objectivist, things like welfare destroy the rights of the individual.  When the value produced by the labor of a man is handed over to someone who 'needs' it more, then the livelihood of the honest man based on independence, integrity, and pride is squandered away.  When honest labor is not rewarded with equal value, where is the incentive for man to aspire to create?

These ideals are pretty extreme, but do have value and should be noted.  I do not think, however, that the creation of Wikipedia is going to stop intelligent people from going to college, getting their phd's, and leading productive lives.  Keen seems to think so, but he only sees in black and white.

I only bring this up because despite the apparent divide between Wales and Keen throughout the debate, I think they have a lot in common.

According to Keen, Wikipedia undermines the value of intellectual labor, and he has a problem with contributors not being paid.  He says "it's not enough to be rewarded in virtue."  This clearly parallels the Objectivism philosophy.

Wales is an optimist, Keen a pessimist.  Wales believes every man has the right to use the knowledge of the world to shape their lives for the better.  Keen thinks the common man will abuse this access to a vast store of knowledge.

I agree with them both here.  Keen is an extremely intelligent man, and I agree with many of his points, but he is one stubborn ass.  I do think everyone should have access to human knowledge; we're all in this life together, but with great power comes great responsibility.

That is where I agree with Keen.  He, and I, fear that people who lack the skepticism that comes with a good education are unable to comprehend the importance of information or determine what may need further verification.  Wikipedia is a great first step in research, but we know it should never be the final step.  An uneducated or lazy person may not know that.

Both men made valid points supported by valid logic, so who is right?  I think neither is completely right or completely wrong.  I think this whole debate is part of a much larger question. 

Do you trust in the nature of people to use the unprecedented database that is Wikipedia, or the power of the Internet in general, in the right way and for the right reasons?  Can we have access to virtually unlimited knowledge and still view the intellectual labor and creativity of man with the utmost importance?

He once had an awkward moment, just to see how it feels

This is a compilation of exploits from The Most Interesting Man in the World.

I'm sure you all have seen these commercials, but I think it's a great example of rhetoric. The creators knew exactly who their audience was and created a following for their beer. What guy doesn't want to be "The Most Interesting Man in the World"?

In my opinion, Dos Equis is a good enough beer to sell itself, but they took it to a whole new level. By drinking their beer, you are making a statement about the kind of man you are: you're the guy who goes for it. You're not afraid to risk it all. You don't settle for mediocre. "Sharks have a week dedicated to you."

I won't lie; the first time I saw these commercials I had a Dos Equis with my dinner downtown. These people have turned the simple act of drinking a beer into an art of living. In a society where individual achievement is paramount, the creators of these commercials have made it as easy as reaching for a Dos Equis. Long story short: great commercial and a great beer.

Cheers

Science and Rhetoric

I like to think that the human faculties of reason reveal the universe exactly how it is, but that is impossible.  We have a limited range of physical stimuli that we can sense, and even that information is filtered by the brain.  However, those clever scientists out there still do their best achieve the closest approximation to the true truth.

Scientists propose theories based on presupposed facts and assumptions.  If facts existed independently of human interference, there would be no need to deliberate the subject.  We know that is not the case.  Most theories take years from their inception to be agreed upon by the scientific community as "fact", and much longer for the general public who is not as affluent. Some longtime theories accepted as fact are later overturned when new 'facts' are introduced, i.e. a geocentric model of the solar system.  Some theories regarded as bogus later become accepted as fact, i.e. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. People must be convinced of the idea.

In the perfect world, reality would be fixed, and there would be nothing we could do to modify or change it.  While there is a true reality, we can only approximate it with our limited knowledge.  All we know of reality is an interpretation of the external world constructed by the mind.  Thus, whatever we know of reality, according to Miller, "is created by individual action and by communal assent."  A mutual agreement is necessary to validate a truth or fact.  If ideas accepted as fact can be other than they are, rhetoric, by definition, is an integral part of science.

I experience this on a weekly basis.  Exhibit A:  Lap Reports.  There is not much I dread more than writing a lab report.  I spend more time writing damn lab reports than anything else, but still get worse grades than even on tests.  I have to convince the grader that I performed the experiment properly, and prove that the experimental results match the theory.  The raw data means nothing until I put words to it and give it meaning, or what I think is a meaning.  The grader tends to think otherwise.  The point is, if you can't explain a scientific idea, then it means nothing.  An audience (the grader) must be convinced.

Mutually Exclusive

I'm going to riff off a passage I identified with from the Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked this time.  The passage reads:

Another weakness in research done by those who envision audence as address suggests an oversimplified view of language.  As Paul Kameen observes in "Rewording the Rhetoric of Composition," "discourse is not grounded in forms or experience or audience; it engages all of these elements simultaneously."  Ann Berthoff has persistently criticized our obsession with one or another of the elements of discourse, insisting that meaning arises out of their synthesis.... Without such a unifying, balanced understanding of language use, it is easy to overemphasize one aspect of discourse, such as audience.  It is also easy to forget, as Anthony Petrosky cautions us, that "reading, responding, and composing are aspects of understanding, and theories that attempt to account for them outside of their interaction with each other run the serious risk of building reductive models of human understanding."

Before I got to this part of article, something about it was eating at me and I didn't know why.  This passage revealed it to me.  An attempt was being made to dissect a natural, flowing process into various categories to be treated as separate entities.  Once these proposed parts of a whole are given a name and singular purpose, they lose a connection with each other.  When the connection is lost, the sum of parts is no longer the whole, but a crapshoot of ideas all screaming to be heard.  They lost the coherent unity that allowed for a much deeper understanding of the process. 

It is mutually exclusive to divide the act of writing or discourse into components of varying function and importance.  They cannot stand alone and still have meaning; they must overlap to give meaning to each other where thought can flow freely among them.  This principle can be applied to virtually any subject.

From my engineering point of view, it would be like trying to gain a deep, unified understanding of thermodynamics by memorizing how to work certain problems with certain equations.  Sure, I can blindly replicate the procedure, but give me a problem that pulls from multiple principles and I will get nowhere.  My mind sees them as separate entities unrelated to each other.  A fundamental grasp on the relationship between energy and matter is needed to unify those various principles into a coherent network that can be applied to solve any problem.