Wikipedia is us

What Wikipedia tells us about ourselves and our decline.

Westerners have an unusual capacity to build complex things without the need for coercion. It accounts for a lot of Western dominance in recent centuries.

Our great institutions are a good example of societal bulwarks no one else can really create, from the police to an independent judiciary, academia and the media. Our ability to establish responsive organizations that enjoyed widespread trust was the marvel of the world.

All have declined in recent times, hijacked and repurposed for destructive ends. The very openness we celebrated seems to be the key weakness.

The degradation of Wikipedia

Wikipedia is a good example of the phenomenon. It reflects Western man’s ingenuity, industriousness and capacity for cooperation even among strangers.

No one else was ever going to produce a universal free encyclopaedia. It was created in the USA and the contributions to its content are dominated by Westerners. The English language version alone contains over seven million pages.

Wikipedia reflects not just technological drive and ingenuity, but the values held by us in the West. Foremost among them is a willingness to be considerate to others and build universal systems that attempt to benefit all.

For a long time Wikipedia was maintained, and still is. But it is no secret it has become an important part of the narrative manipulation common in Western democracies.

Over the last decade or so many examples of tinkering in Wikipedia have come to light, from deletions of inconvenient information to distortions and fabrications.

It has certainly attracted the attention of narrative managers. Standard tropes are policed and actively monitored by an entrenched minority. Orthodox views are aggressively defended with unorthodox ideas sometimes intentionally purged and erased. Censorship is alive and well in Wikiland.

Among the informed it no longer enjoys a reputation for excellence, objectivity and supporting a plurality of views, the key attributes it needs to survive.

This pattern of interference leading to decline and collapse is replicated elsewhere.

The erosion of credibility

Wikipedia’s subtle capture reflects the West generally. Manufactured narratives broadcast via once-trusted entities have never been so obviously enforced. These ensure orthodox views are mainstreamed while alternatives become challenging to find.

Our key institutions, once the envy of the world, have become degraded as they play a part in controlling us rather than reflecting us.

The sequence of decline is predictable, similar to Wikipedia. A new thing is created based on mutual trust, often surviving for a long time despite its voluntary origins.

Its success and stability attracts exploiters who cannot build anything. They see a chance to profit from its goodwill and reputation but are unable to match the dynamism and flair that built the original.

Over time as it is used for narrow ends people gradually lose faith and eventually its credibility is lost completely.

Many avoid Wikipedia already for this reason. It is simply too easy to abuse so how can you trust it at all?

Our great institutions built on trust and decency are easy targets for similar reasons. The police, the justice system, the great charities, media, academia. Their credibility emerged over decades and centuries, and they enjoyed a prominent place in society.

But they have attracted the attention of pathological types who understand their prominence as something to exploit.

We can easily see why. A police briefing can help shape perceptions of crime and who is committing it. Researchers at a leading university can lend credibility to all sorts of schemes, at least for a while. A respected broadsheet newspaper can promote causes and policies that might otherwise meet resistance. They can certainly imply consensus or popularity even when none exists.

For anyone unconcerned about maintaining such powerful entities they must be very tempting to abuse as they provide instant authority and power.

Western institutions in decline

Wikipedia’s manipulation is the canary in the coal mine. A good idea easily infiltrated due to its inherent openness.

Wikipedia looks fine to a casual user. So do the police and the judiciary if you have little interaction with them. Many still accept the media, academic studies and traditional publishers unaware they are like Wikipedia. Their reputations are attractive to those with something to sell who care nothing for their pedigree or reputation.

Our nations are no different. Unique magnificent creations the world cannot match.

Our institutions established much that others envy, from great charities to universal schooling for kids. Most impressive of all was our capacity to impose law and order for the benefit of all, rare even now. Millions flock to our nations just because of this.

Our accomplishments are borderline science fiction, from antibiotics to satellites. The world lives in our wake.

Such societies are not easy to build or maintain. They are based on a high degree of mutual trust, common decency and shared values. This is seen as exploitable weakness by political operators. Like Wikipedia’s open model, nothing more than a way in for the ruthless.

And it is ruthless. An indifference to anything carefully built by others, just there for the taking. Like setting fire to irreplaceable paintings in an art gallery to stay warm. Philistines consuming all the social capital they can get their hands on, disinterested in the decades and centuries it takes to build something great.

It is difficult to know what the answer is except better policing of what we value and perhaps more discussion of the pathological types who live among us.

Wikipedia illustrates what decline looks like but also provides some clue as to the way forward. It shows us trust-based systems only work with the trustworthy. An extra few steps to prove one’s worth seems sensible even if not part of the original design.

Force people to demonstrate an ability to make beneficial contributions before we give away the keys to the kingdom. That would work as well for holding public office, getting a visa or even being allowed to vote as it does with granting editing rights to Wikipedia contributors. What have you done to earn this privilege? Prove your worth first. It would certainly make it harder to game.

The end of an era

The era of automatic tolerance is coming to an end as naive westerners learn that culture matters and ours is unusually open to abuse. Fail to maintain it, for whatever reason, and we have the Wikipedia experience. All our hard work is viewed as nothing more than a platform for vandals to have their way while they laugh at our naivety.

The fate of Wikipedia is a warning. It looks fine. Most are unaware there is any problem. But the lies and the manipulations are definitely in there, eating away at the trust it ultimately relies on, in time destroying the credibility it needs to maintain its reputation. Once the foundations go the rest always follows.

Western societies are no different. Our demise will be similar. We either get better at policing our institutions or they rot from within while the distracted barely notice them breaking down. With a bit of effort we can avoid this fate.

---