Weinberger’s analysis of Wikipedia’s definition of neutrality seems at first to be very black and white. When Weinberger spoke to Wales, as I can imagine after watching his TedTalk a few weeks ago, he most likely gave a somewhat snarky response by saying “I’m not all that interested in French Philosophy”. He then makes a very basic yet thought-provoking statement about neutrality by saying, “An article is neutral when people have stopped changing it”. The truth is, as humans it is in our nature to challenge things we disagree with and as we have probably all witnessed through Wikipedia and other like sites, there always seems to be room for improvement or changes. The example that Weinberger provides us about John Kerry’s Vietnam war record made me recall how much of a media hype that was due to the buzz surrounding what types of medals he actually earned. Wikipedia provides an opportunity to discuss what changes they believe should be made, and until there are no more changes the article according to Wales will not be considered neutral. After reading about this example, I chose to look up President Barack Obama and read through his extensive Wiki page. I shortly realized that there was not a general forum to have any type of discussion regarding this page and the changes people would like to have edited. Whether or not his wiki page’s discussion board was taken down because of the backlash of the government shutdown or just because as a President there is already a lot of “vandalizing” of such pages, this halts any user’s ability to make changes to what they may consider a very bias page. Weinberger states that “neutrality is a tough term” and I have to agree in terms of not being able to adjust a wiki article until it is no longer changed around; however, it is my belief that there will always be changes, always evolving, always deepening of opinions, and much more.
The definition of neutrality and how tough it is goes hand in hand with the library profession particularly in the banning of books. While neutrality is difficult to obtain, as information professionals we must cater to the needs and desires of our patrons. Unfortunately for us, while we may disagree with a person’s desire to have a book banned, we must try to adhere to their wants but without violating another patron’s rights to that book. This is a very hot button issue in the field of librarianship which is why the American Library Association produces a publication every three years containing ways to help librarians and other information professionals to recognize and support the First Amendment. This is the link that gives a brief synopsis about what this publication does for librarians when it comes to banning books and the overall theme of censorship and the difficult nature of neutrality--http://www.alastore.ala.org/detail.aspx?ID=2931. The fact is, Wales gave the most honest answer by saying we cannot be neutral until we stop changing things. In my opinion, it is nearly impossible that in the sense of banning books it is difficult to remain neutral and unbiased with this subject especially when I feel so strongly about it. Although I understand Weinberger’s analysis of Wales’ definition, it still leaves me wondering if there truly and honestly is such a thing as being neutral in such an information obsessed world.
(Below is a screenshot showing the President's closed general forum page)
No comments:
Post a Comment