I have often wondered about the merits and flaws of wikipedia and surmise that its drawbacks outweigh its merits, if only by a hair's breadth. For example, in the entry of the Battle of Aegospotami in 405 Before the Christian Era some of the language used by the (presumably unqualified) author is in blanket statements and lacks the naturally cautious register adopted by more learned historians. On the other hand, it has many merits. Flying in the face of convention, one magnificent historian, Professor Paul Freedman endorses wikipedia. His argument is sound in that wikipedia is miles ahead of what it was a decade ago. Furthermore, it holds much more information than any reference work. I know of one scholar whom passed his degree by using the citations of wikipedia, thus bypassing the scholastic stigma attached to it by the learned and experienced academic establishment. In any case, wikipedia does have other gaping flaws. Its main advantage over more reputable reference works with much more authority (such as the most worthy Encylopaedia Britannica or the excellent Oxford Reference Library) is that it is more up to date. However, due to infringement of copyright, wikipedia can only lawfully hold information nearly a century old, thus rendering it feckless compared with reference works with more clout. However, it does indeed still retain a good deal of information.
Even if the information displayed on wikipedia is deemed far less sound than a "proper" reference work, it still holds much more than many other sites. This is why (and call me old fashioned) I still think that my complete set of Encyclopaedia Britannica (published in 1985) is the "best of a bad bunch". Why? The Encyclopaedia Britannica on-line, although much more up to date than the leather bound volumes I picked up, has entries which are much more concise and far more slimmed down than the fifty or so volumes I have sat on my stair case. My books are more up to date than the fatally flawed 70 year old outmoded wikipedia information and far more thorough than many other websites "with authority" as it simply contains more quality information in its pages, even if the information therein is some thirty years old. For a classicist, a philosopher and an antiquarian such as I, the fact that it is so old does not hamper me anywhere near as much as if I was for example a scientist, that would be reliant on only the lastest information available. Although I acknowledge that only the latest information is the most worthy, in any discipline, for a historian primary source analysis is the very essence of classical studies (something I learned from the most magnificent Doctor Hall). The older the better! This is obviously not so with archaeological evidence. I absolutely adore the fact that on one module in particular (A330 Myth in the Greek and Roman World) that the University has begun to incorporate material culture studies into its syllabus, which has always been dominated by purely the literary evidence.
I came into tertiary education late, having spent years as a loafing wayfarer and wandering minstrel, yet finding the sheer joy and utter intellectual nourishment enriched by tenacious study is as though I have discovered that whopping great diamond they found today. The gem of enlightenment, sparkling in the sunshine so pure and precious. I really don't know what on earth I was thinking tramping around looking for gigs, wooing fair ladies and getting drunk: what I should have been doing is studying hard and working even harder.
Nothing worth doing is ever easy and I am so glad I did not take French language, creative writing and music: as I would have learned comparitively little. Instead of expanding on the strengths I already had, I decided instead to fulfill that which was lacking. I still wish I could have studied the Welsh and Scottish history modules once available, or the art history or heritage studies module, but one cannot do everything. I felt I made the right choice. Many students feel they were fed up of doing introductory modules, but I felt that they were an essential stepping stone for what is an excellent institution of learning. Without having such a broad base on the syllabus, I would not have been able to decide what was right for me. The arts and humanities faculty at the Open University have such a sublime syllabus. Even this evening one of my colleagues has to sit a mock history examination on medicine through time, and although I would have loved to study that module, having a "taster" unit to delve into gave me enough information to smile quietly to myself and say, "I know a little bit about it". The whole trip has been just great. I mean, a really rough roller-coaster ride into the depths and heights of tertiary education. Righty ho, I feel like reading Polybius. Toodle pip!
No comments:
Post a Comment