Wikipedia: A Harbinger of a New Era

Many people will criticize what I am about to say. Indeed, the majority of the population will completely reject it. You see, if what the current state of the world can be described as a democracy, then what I am about to propose may most aptly be defined as an anarchy, not of government, but of information and opinion. Despite the obvious negative connotations, I ask you, what is really so bad about anarchy?

Before I continue, I should properly define exactly what kind of situation “anarchy of opinion and information” entails. In the current mediascape, popular demand exerts a heavy, but not total influence on the new media product. New movies are still pre-filtered by an elite group of critics, and even popular TV shows such as American Idol still cut down prospective winners to a select group before they give the public a chance to vote. A similar situation of censorship exists in information through the use of editors to choose content that appears in scientific journals, newspapers, and magazines. Anarchy removes these filtration devices, placing every piece of information and media before the public before any bias can be formed. I am not suggesting that critics and editors be silenced, only that they create critiques and edit works after they have been made available to the public. Nor am I suggesting that every piece of information created now or ever be placed in the public eye. I am merely suggesting that the ultimate choice be placed in the hands of the author, director, or inventor, not in those of the critic, editor, or censor.

In a way, it is senseless to argue for anarchy, since, to some measure, it has already been achieved. In this day and age, anyone, anywhere, can post anything on the internet without fear of retribution. It is in this virtual microcosm that we find director’s vision uncompromised and original drafts unpolished. They are received as the public perceives. This is where Wikipedia comes in. Since any member of the bourgeoisie can edit its content, it serves as the most complete record of public opinion in the history of man. Opponents of the website decry its numerous inaccuracies, yet such discrepancies are unimportant next to its empirical value (what kind of expert consults Wikipedia for burgeoning developments in his or her field?). Instead, Wikipedia functions as a harbinger, a messenger of times to come, when public acclaim determines the worth and meaning of a work. This is the essence and genius of the internet.

In essence, I am not arguing for the adoption of anarchy, but for the acceptance of it. Let us accept that the phenomenon of the internet and informational anarchy is slowly infiltrating all aspects of our daily lives. Instead of being dragged inexorably, kicking and screaming, into this glorious new era, we should recognize that it has only come this far because we, collectively and unconsciously, rejoice in the change. It is time for us to sweep aside our petty discomforts and fears, realizing consciously that this is a shift that we can truly, and will eventually, welcome.