The most original Wikipedia is without doubt the neutrality of treatment in the articles. This is a fundamental principle founder. Here I would like to report a problem connected to this neutrality and the fact that Wikipedia is an open media, open to hear people, even if we can recognize without much effort that certain psychological profiles are definitely more attracted to participation in Wikipedia and other I call "teachers", that is to say those who believe they have enough knowledge to share.
Everyone uses his personal experience in forming a mental picture of reality, a reality which I assume it is inaccessible in the absolute. How to integrate this mental construct with that of others depends directly on the stage of psychological development is located the individual. We can identify three phases: First phase
- : the individual sees dualistic way of knowing: everything is true or false, black or white. No room for nuance, the individual is of type Manichean. He refuses any analysis that does not match his own experience.
- Second phase: cynical, since the true or false can not be broken, so what's good and everything is either true or false, whatever. this leads to a cynicism borne: the truth is just opinion and all truths are equal.
- third stage: the choice. The man realized that knowledge can be described by several models. He accepts these models provided that they have been validated by experts. It develops its own vision of the choices they perform.
I explain in this way the Franco-centering observed throughout the encyclopedia. How an individual high in France managed to understand the Japanese family except through his prism? Thus, if unchecked, it will have an idea the Japanese family entirely wrong. He wrote in an article, not the Japanese family, but his idea of the Japanese family. As this idea is relatively personal to him, he can understand the criticism that will be made.
But as I explain the edit wars by this simple scheme. An individual in the first phase will agree with someone who thinks exactly like him and for him, any other explanation is absurd and untrue: it must be corrected. A violent dispute born of two individuals from this phase with opposing ideas.
The edit war between an individual of the first phase and the third one will appear at one time or another of bad faith from that of the first phase: he refused so apparently irrational arguments made clubs by the other party because he is (still) can not see the world as complex and different from its image.
But more complex is the edit war between two individuals of the third category: this is the quarrel expert, inextricable. They know what they do and they are moving their marbles so asked. The bias is their choice. Is Freud or Lacan is right, that provides the best description? The detached observer will simply observe the two theories. But proponents of a school vs. another will not have that detachment.
The edit war is multifaceted in its causes and structural. We can not escape it.
An example from the blog of one whose name is silent, which clearly illustrated a case of an individual's first phase, that of Arthur .
0 comments:
Post a Comment