tooth soup

Today, I’d like to talk about the influence that the advent of wikipedia–and free, convenient, ‘accurate’ information in general–has had on everyday conversation, and discussion. I’m sure a lot of people have initiated blog posts and forum topics on this issue already, but every time I try and google to find out what sort of opinions have gone before me, the search results throw back the wiki entry on ‘conversation’ and I’m back at square one. And anyway, even if I did manage to find some place that had brought up all the relevant arguments, I’d be defeating the entire purpose of what I’m about to discuss. So, here I am about to dive, blind of anything said before me, into trying to explain trends that I’ve experienced in recent communication, be it over chat rooms, instant messaging, forums, phones, or real face-to-face vibration of air molecules.

There are two areas in which I find it cringe-worthy for people to refer to Wikipedia (and when I mention Wikipedia, you can assume I mean other free, online sources of accurate information as well): one is when something can be logically thought out or calculated, and the other is when opinions are being discussed. For things such as historical dates, things that rely on recall, I can see the value in advising someone to go look it up on Wikipedia–a date is a date, and you can’t logically work out the date that the Battle of the Bulge occurred if you just don’t know it. Some of you might think that the first cringe condition is similar to this exception, and I’d agree with you about 20%. But the other 80% of me is likely to be screaming obscenities at your refusal to use your brain. Let me explain.

To me, Wikipedia is like looking at the answers in the back of the Calculus exercise book you were given at school. When you click on the little black-on-white ‘W’, you are covertly flipping just past the index and running a grubby fingernail down to the number of the problem you just can’t for the life of you work out. Now, I can understand this, I’m a fond follower of the law of diminishing returns. If you can’t work something out using a particular method after a certain amount of time, you should by all means find some alternative way of moving past the problem. And the answer page, or Wikipedia, is certainly a good way of doing so. However, my exception comes with the amount of time spent, and correspondingly the amount (and depth) of brainpower engaged, in trying to figure out life’s calculus problems before flipping to the back of the book. Too often a conversation about some wondered process, fact, or problem will be cut short by a swift ‘just wiki it‘ from someone in the crowd. And yes, for sure, it will likely give you the right answers to your problem, or provide you with the right fact to enter in your memory banks for future pub quiz nights, but for my money the joy in discovering things is in the process itself, rather than the revelation.

Not only that, but by providing a shortcut to the end of a discussion (an image of ye olde Snakes and Ladders and the stupid ladder right at the start that basically won the game comes just sprang into my mind), you’re denying many of the joys of conversation in the first place. Making jokes at the expense of the seriousness of the discussion, branches of inquiry that come from the exploration of a group’s knowledge, and completely random comments and the subsequent pursual of their eventual irrational end (if Cian’s reading this, she’ll remember the conversation about Alan’s boxer shorts that ended with the image of a brick wall crawling away on a pair of axelotl’s legs–yes, seriously). All of these are snipped at the base with that all-too-often used reference for the person to just go away and find out for themselves.

The reason for my distaste at people referencing Wikipedia for the presentation of opinions is pretty obvious–they’re other people’s opinions, not yours. The assumption I’m making here is that the person is going to some lengths, small or extravagent, to bluff the opinion gleaned as their own. This is something not strictly limited to websites; in the past it has been the domain of magazines, and television review shows. Using someone else’s opinion as your own is like using someone else’s mannerism as your own–it’s possible to pull it off, but anyone that isn’t completely brain-dead will see what you’re doing, and you won’t ever feel as comfortable doing it as the person you are imitating. Wha t I don’t understand is why people do this in the first place. Why not simply express your ignorance at the subject at hand and gain some valuable insight into the way the people around you think? They’re bound to want to educate you on the subject, sometimes forcibly, and you can learn a lot about the people around you if you let them do so. Of course, if you want to move the conversation onto something else and are using the pilfered opinion as a means to dismiss the subject, then that’s understandable, if still quite selfish.

Anyway, I’ve just about run out of steam on this issue. I’ll continue to be annoyed by people that quash discussion by telling people to run off and look things up, and I’ll continue to rage internally at those who I know are using the opinions of another to save whatever face they imagine themselves to have. I’d like to hear if anyone thinks along the same lines, parallel or orthogonal to mine, so if you have the time, tell me what you think.

No related posts.