I love Wikipedia so much, I hardly even minded when it killed me off
I do a lot of complaining about technology in this column. I complain about the influence of tech corporations over public life. I complain about how AI presents any number of existential economic and cultural dangers. I complain about how
Elon Musk
and
Sam Altman
are doing the handiwork of the devil himself. There is, in my defence, a good deal to complain about, and I've got a column that needs writing. But I've been giving a lot of thought over the last while to one particular product of tech culture about which I'm wholeheartedly positive, and for which I'm profoundly grateful: Wikipedia.
It seems increasingly obvious to me that Wikipedia is among the truly great cultural achievements of recent decades. It's an amazing and inspiring thing – both an endlessly useful tool and an infinitely ramifying monument to the value of knowledge. The fact that it is the work not of a publicly-traded corporation – of vainglorious executives and pampered employees – but of a vast network of ordinary people who are strangers to one another, invests it with not just a practical but a symbolic value. It represents everything that the internet can and should be, a utopian set of possibilities which, having animated the early online era, have mostly been buried under a trash heap of targeted advertising, hateful propaganda and useless AI slop. It must be protected at all costs.
[
Capitalism is incompatible with any kind of human flourishing on this planet
Opens in new window
]
I have always valued it, as much for its idiosyncrasies as for its incredible expansiveness, but I have probably been guilty, over the years, of taking it for granted. Not any more. The remorseless incursion of so-called artificial intelligence into every corner of online life – which is to say, increasingly, almost every corner of life itself – has caused Wikipedia to stand out in bold relief for me.
There is a shallow seductiveness to an app like
ChatGPT
. It presents itself, among other things, as a brilliant and erudite automated research assistant, of which you can ask almost any question, and which will immediately provide you with informative and fully-sourced answers. But anyone who has attempted to use ChatGPT, or any of its growing agglomeration of rivals, in this way will know that it continually just makes stuff up, that it is so unreliable as to be effectively worse than useless.
READ MORE
I am not, by the way, claiming that Wikipedia is infallible. I have fallen victim to its fallibility. Some years ago I received a bemused message from my agent, who had just got an email, marked 'URGENT', from the organisers of the Ryszard Kapuściński Award, a Polish literary prize for works of literary non-fiction. I had been nominated, they informed her, but they only awarded the prize to living authors and according to my Wikipedia page I had been dead for almost a year. They wanted her to confirm, by close of business, that I was still alive.
The site was started in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, but it's a testament to its egalitarian spirit that neither of these guys has become particularly famous
I realised pretty quickly what had happened: the Wikipedia page had been edited by the co-creators of a theatrical adaptation of my first book, in which a fictionalised version of me dies. The page was intended only for use in the show but somehow got put online by an oblivious third party, where it remained unnoticed – or at least unchanged – for several months, presumably because the page didn't get a lot of footfall. My agent took the liberty of telling the award people I was alive. I did not, sadly, win the award, though I did receive the far greater prize of not being dead.
So great is my love for Wikipedia that I can easily forgive it this brief and basically frivolous attempt to murder me. If anything, in fact, it increases my affection for it, because it serves to underline its profoundly human aspect. Its failures are eccentric and endearing. Whereas if ChatGPT started saying I was dead, it would be just plain creepy.
When I consider the subject of Wikipedia, and how much I love it, I invariably find myself thinking, too, about one of my favourite living writers, the American novelist and essayist Nicholson Baker. Back in 2008 Baker wrote a great essay for the New York Review of Books
called The Charms of Wikipedia. Ostensibly a review of a book called Wikipedia: the Missing Manual, the piece is mostly a long, idiosyncratically personal profession of love for Wikipedia itself, in which Baker – author of such
sui generis
wonders as The Mezzanine, Room Temperature, and The Fermata – reveals that he has, for some years, been a moderately prolific Wikipedia editor. (Under the username 'Wageless', he writes, he was a contributor to pages on such topics as bovine hormones, the film Sleepless in Seattle, hydraulic fluid, fruit cobbler, and the historiographical process of periodisation.)
[
'I walked through the fire all by myself': An image of a child lays bare barbarism in Gaza
Opens in new window
]
Much of the essay is concerned with Baker's involvement in a struggle against a group he calls 'the deletionists' – people hell-bent on erasing topics deemed insufficiently notable for Wikipedia pages. Baker is a defiant 'inclusionist', an absolute believer in the potential of almost any topic to be worthy of explication – a conviction that also, not coincidentally, animates his lavishly digressive and genre-hopping body of work. (It is the inclusionists whom I have to thank, I suppose, for the fact that my own Wikipedia page has never been deleted.)
Baker exemplifies Susan Sontag's definition of a writer as someone who is 'interested in everything' – a sensibility to which Wikipedia is bound to appeal. It's an artefact of a world madly stuffed with phenomena, and a way of thinking about it whereby none of it is irrelevant.
[
Zuckerberg saying AI will cure loneliness is like big tobacco suggesting cigarettes can treat cancer
Opens in new window
]
The site was started in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, but it's a testament to its egalitarian spirit that neither of these guys has become particularly famous, despite the sheer scale of the thing they started. (In fact, I had to look up the Wikipedia page for Wikipedia to remind myself who its founders were.) There is no Silicon Valley-style cult of the founder here, in other words; the site is owned and run by a non-profit foundation, and its real creators are its tens of millions of anonymous volunteer editors.
'It was constructed,' as Baker puts it, 'by strangers who disagreed about all kinds of things but who were drawn to a shared, not-for-profit purpose ... And when people did help they were given a flattering name. They weren't called 'Wikipedia's little helpers,' they were called 'editors.''
There is something ennobling, in other words, about the whole project – in all its vastness and eccentricity and frivolity and grandeur – just as there is something ennobling about democracy. The greatest thing about Wikipedia, of course, is that it works exceptionally well. It works not despite its existing outside the machinery of profit, but precisely because of it. And so if ChatGPT – along with all the other meretricious technologies that all do basically the same thing and that similarly don't really work – represents consumer-capitalism, then Wikipedia stands for democracy. May it never fall.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
9 hours ago
- Irish Times
Nvidia outpaces Microsoft and Apple on path to $4 trillion valuation
Nvidia is leading the race to become the world's first $4 trillion (€3.4 trillion) company. Apple had seemed destined to get there, peaking at $3.85 trillion in December 2024. However, Nvidia ($3.8 trillion) and Microsoft ($3.65 trillion) are now the frontrunners. Apple ($3 trillion) has fallen well behind, with new product cycles and the disappointing Vision Pro yet to make a major impact. Nvidia's turnaround is striking. The stock tanked early in 2025 amid fears over China's DeepSeek AI and tariff threats, but has soared almost 80 per cent from April's bottom. READ MORE Too far, too fast? No, says Loop Capital, which envisions a $6 trillion valuation. Barclays sees $5 trillion on the horizon. Nvidia chief executive Jensen Huang is similarly bullish, hailing AI and robotics as a 'multitrillion-dollar opportunity' at Wednesday's shareholder meeting. Indeed, Bank of America's Vivek Arya goes further, calling Nvidia a 'value stock' despite its rapid ascent, 'given the kind of growth opportunity' it presents. Market sentiment is fickle. For now, however, Nvidia is the frontrunner in the $4 trillion club.
Irish Examiner
18 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Irish Examiner view: In the era of AI, education is at a premium
While the rush by companies to crowbar artificial intelligence into every product imaginable continues — even if it's not actually artificial intelligence and just tools that are good at predicting the answer you're looking for — the technology is already showing detrimental effects on the human mind. A study published this month by researchers at MIT, with an admittedly very small sample size, suggests that the use of ChatGPT and similar tools results in reduced cognition, which is essential for independent critical thinking: 'Over four months, LLM [large language model] users consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioural levels. These results raise concerns about the long-term educational implications of LLM reliance and underscore the need for deeper inquiry into AI's role in learning. The rush from AI opponents online was to say something like 'AI makes you stupid', but that is both inaccurate and unfair. Still, the technology isn't going away any time soon, and quite apart from the environmental and, apparently, mental damage we had a warning just this past week that AI could come to the detriment of Irish jobs. Members of the AI Advisory Council — made up of 15 independent experts who advise the Government on Ireland's AI strategy — appeared at an Oireachtas committee to say that they predict software engineers, junior lawyers, and customer service jobs to be the first to take the hit. They note that entry-level programming jobs are already being replaced by AI, as the industry behind the technology applies it to itself first. But whether the technology ends up augmenting or replacing the humans in the loop remains to be seen, largely because most large-scale experiments seem to be giving mixed results at best. Tesla finally launched its seemingly eternally promised autonomous driving taxis in Texas (with a person sitting in the front seat by the way, even if not driving), only for them to make a plethora of basic driving errors. While the shareholders seem happy, especially after the first quarter's debacle on the back of Elon Musk's dalliance with government and despite slumping Tesla car sales generally, whether this will prove a triumph in the long road — pun very much intended — remains to be seen. That doesn't mean that the tech giants aren't prepared to gamble big on automation or artificial intelligence. Last week, Amazon, which employs some 6,500 people here in Ireland and 1.5m worldwide, told staff that AI would probably mean a reduction in the total number of employees, possibly replacing some of its current corporate staff. Microsoft is preparing to lay off another 6,000 people while it simultaneously increases spending on AI. The cuts are across sales and other teams, and the talk is of 'trimming' the workforce and 'aligning it' with company strategy (it still has 2.28m other employees). Microsoft should be warned, though, about expecting an AI solution to bridge any workforce gap: Payments platform Klarna laid off 700 people in 2022 only to have to scramble to rehire many when its AI tool wasn't up to the task of customer service. The head of the AI company Anthropic has claimed that half of all entry-level jobs could be replaced by artificial intelligence — but then, he would say that, wouldn't he? That said, the IMF has previously noted that as much as 60% of jobs in advanced economies are exposed to AI, and not all for the better. Good news, then, that in recent weeks University College Cork has risen in the international university rankings, holding a space in the top 1% globally. It shows that quality education is still in demand, and with it the training in critical thinking and reasoning that will stand to the whole of society in the long run. There are ways that AI tools and apps can be beneficial, but right now the biggest return on investment for the technology has been wanton devastation of climate and copyright. Employment equality With the last school now shut for the summer, we face into a time that prior to covid would have been increasingly fraught for working parents — not just keeping their children entertained, but physically kept hale and hearty while they are off working in an office. The rise of hybrid, flexible, and remote working options has, if not put paid to that, at least made it more easy to navigate for some, though not all. And it must be acknowledged that a great many jobs have never been able to allow for remote or hybrid options, such as retail or manufacturing. Still, for parents of young and not so young children, being able to be physically present in their youngsters' lives represents time reclaimed, with all the emotional and relationship development benefits that brings. Doubly so for the parents or carers of children with disabilities, for whom summer camps and other such activities might be a pipe dream. One might expect that remote and hybrid working, meanwhile, would have levelled the playing field for our disabled citizens. And, while there is evidence generally that more people with disabilities have been able to access employment in the Western world, Ireland is lagging behind. Last week's Feelgood pages noted that Ireland's disability employment rate of 32.6% is not only way below the EU average of 51.3%, but is the absolute bottom of the EU table. More than 1.1m people in this republic have at least one long-lasting condition according to census figures, with some 350,000 experiencing difficulty taking part in activities, and just over 300,000 experiencing a difficulty working at a job or attending school or college. Not all disabilities are visible. Disabled workers find a plethora of obstacles in their way, from losing their social protection payments to the interview and testing process, to not even being part of the conversation because they are not targeted for recruitment. Many companies offer adaptations to work environments, and there are other supports available to firms. The American civil rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer once said: 'Nobody is free until everybody is free.' Isn't it time we did a better job of ensuring that our citizens who face obstacles are given the same freedom as everybody else?
Irish Times
a day ago
- Irish Times
I love Wikipedia so much, I hardly even minded when it killed me off
I do a lot of complaining about technology in this column. I complain about the influence of tech corporations over public life. I complain about how AI presents any number of existential economic and cultural dangers. I complain about how Elon Musk and Sam Altman are doing the handiwork of the devil himself. There is, in my defence, a good deal to complain about, and I've got a column that needs writing. But I've been giving a lot of thought over the last while to one particular product of tech culture about which I'm wholeheartedly positive, and for which I'm profoundly grateful: Wikipedia. It seems increasingly obvious to me that Wikipedia is among the truly great cultural achievements of recent decades. It's an amazing and inspiring thing – both an endlessly useful tool and an infinitely ramifying monument to the value of knowledge. The fact that it is the work not of a publicly-traded corporation – of vainglorious executives and pampered employees – but of a vast network of ordinary people who are strangers to one another, invests it with not just a practical but a symbolic value. It represents everything that the internet can and should be, a utopian set of possibilities which, having animated the early online era, have mostly been buried under a trash heap of targeted advertising, hateful propaganda and useless AI slop. It must be protected at all costs. [ Capitalism is incompatible with any kind of human flourishing on this planet Opens in new window ] I have always valued it, as much for its idiosyncrasies as for its incredible expansiveness, but I have probably been guilty, over the years, of taking it for granted. Not any more. The remorseless incursion of so-called artificial intelligence into every corner of online life – which is to say, increasingly, almost every corner of life itself – has caused Wikipedia to stand out in bold relief for me. There is a shallow seductiveness to an app like ChatGPT . It presents itself, among other things, as a brilliant and erudite automated research assistant, of which you can ask almost any question, and which will immediately provide you with informative and fully-sourced answers. But anyone who has attempted to use ChatGPT, or any of its growing agglomeration of rivals, in this way will know that it continually just makes stuff up, that it is so unreliable as to be effectively worse than useless. READ MORE I am not, by the way, claiming that Wikipedia is infallible. I have fallen victim to its fallibility. Some years ago I received a bemused message from my agent, who had just got an email, marked 'URGENT', from the organisers of the Ryszard Kapuściński Award, a Polish literary prize for works of literary non-fiction. I had been nominated, they informed her, but they only awarded the prize to living authors and according to my Wikipedia page I had been dead for almost a year. They wanted her to confirm, by close of business, that I was still alive. The site was started in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, but it's a testament to its egalitarian spirit that neither of these guys has become particularly famous I realised pretty quickly what had happened: the Wikipedia page had been edited by the co-creators of a theatrical adaptation of my first book, in which a fictionalised version of me dies. The page was intended only for use in the show but somehow got put online by an oblivious third party, where it remained unnoticed – or at least unchanged – for several months, presumably because the page didn't get a lot of footfall. My agent took the liberty of telling the award people I was alive. I did not, sadly, win the award, though I did receive the far greater prize of not being dead. So great is my love for Wikipedia that I can easily forgive it this brief and basically frivolous attempt to murder me. If anything, in fact, it increases my affection for it, because it serves to underline its profoundly human aspect. Its failures are eccentric and endearing. Whereas if ChatGPT started saying I was dead, it would be just plain creepy. When I consider the subject of Wikipedia, and how much I love it, I invariably find myself thinking, too, about one of my favourite living writers, the American novelist and essayist Nicholson Baker. Back in 2008 Baker wrote a great essay for the New York Review of Books called The Charms of Wikipedia. Ostensibly a review of a book called Wikipedia: the Missing Manual, the piece is mostly a long, idiosyncratically personal profession of love for Wikipedia itself, in which Baker – author of such sui generis wonders as The Mezzanine, Room Temperature, and The Fermata – reveals that he has, for some years, been a moderately prolific Wikipedia editor. (Under the username 'Wageless', he writes, he was a contributor to pages on such topics as bovine hormones, the film Sleepless in Seattle, hydraulic fluid, fruit cobbler, and the historiographical process of periodisation.) [ 'I walked through the fire all by myself': An image of a child lays bare barbarism in Gaza Opens in new window ] Much of the essay is concerned with Baker's involvement in a struggle against a group he calls 'the deletionists' – people hell-bent on erasing topics deemed insufficiently notable for Wikipedia pages. Baker is a defiant 'inclusionist', an absolute believer in the potential of almost any topic to be worthy of explication – a conviction that also, not coincidentally, animates his lavishly digressive and genre-hopping body of work. (It is the inclusionists whom I have to thank, I suppose, for the fact that my own Wikipedia page has never been deleted.) Baker exemplifies Susan Sontag's definition of a writer as someone who is 'interested in everything' – a sensibility to which Wikipedia is bound to appeal. It's an artefact of a world madly stuffed with phenomena, and a way of thinking about it whereby none of it is irrelevant. [ Zuckerberg saying AI will cure loneliness is like big tobacco suggesting cigarettes can treat cancer Opens in new window ] The site was started in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, but it's a testament to its egalitarian spirit that neither of these guys has become particularly famous, despite the sheer scale of the thing they started. (In fact, I had to look up the Wikipedia page for Wikipedia to remind myself who its founders were.) There is no Silicon Valley-style cult of the founder here, in other words; the site is owned and run by a non-profit foundation, and its real creators are its tens of millions of anonymous volunteer editors. 'It was constructed,' as Baker puts it, 'by strangers who disagreed about all kinds of things but who were drawn to a shared, not-for-profit purpose ... And when people did help they were given a flattering name. They weren't called 'Wikipedia's little helpers,' they were called 'editors.'' There is something ennobling, in other words, about the whole project – in all its vastness and eccentricity and frivolity and grandeur – just as there is something ennobling about democracy. The greatest thing about Wikipedia, of course, is that it works exceptionally well. It works not despite its existing outside the machinery of profit, but precisely because of it. And so if ChatGPT – along with all the other meretricious technologies that all do basically the same thing and that similarly don't really work – represents consumer-capitalism, then Wikipedia stands for democracy. May it never fall.
