User:Meinolf Wewel

(*1931), graduated from German high school 1951. Apprenticeship in publishing (1951-54). University studies in philosophy, German studies, pedagogy, psychology, and art history; Ph.D. majoring in philosophy 1968. Director of advertising in various publishing houses (1954/55 and 1960-69), editor for pedagogy (1965-69), director of the book publisher Karl Alber Verlag (1969-94). Retired since 1995. Travels to South Korea, Japan, and Hong Kong (1997), and to the U.S. (1998/99). Hobbys: Paintings, photos, and collages; books; Wikipedia.

Motto: Truth has many faces.

Meinolf Wewel: Website [1], Portfolio [2], YouTube-Kanal [[ [3], Wikipedia [4]

AGED 80+ AND STILL WITH THEM

MEINOLF WEWEL

I am with Wikipedia already many years and hope to remain belonging to them. It is a great pleasure to be able and allowed to take and give back to this ocean of knowledge. The myth of its unreliability is proven wrong a long time ago. Wikipedia has proved to be as reliable as the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Brockhaus. She is often even more exact and profound and, above all, nearer to the actuality of the day than any printed encyclopedia.

“But everyone can write and make changes beyond control in Wikipedia!” Those words are often heard and withhold many to engage with, to write, to correct or to contribute fragments of his or her knowledge to Wikipedia. How many times did specialists show me mistakes or missing data. Only in rare cases could I encourage to complete or correct the text. Does the fear to loose a specific status cause people to contribute progressive knowledge or new data in a “work in (of) progress” that is available to everyone?

Cooperation with Wikipedia is for me a form of social and civil engagement. It corresponds to the possibilities of my age and fit to the competences, which I acquired during the many years of my professional life. A freely chosen pseudonym maintains an important distance from the social status one has acquired in full consciousness. It is therefore not a matter of concern about that status, but because one should contribute from a viewpoint that is as neutral as possible. The author thus distances herself from the text. It is a great advantage that in the Wikipedia project all contributions are delivered anonymously and without financial rewards. It means, that neither financial interests nor any profiling of an author’s work plays a role in his contributions.

Free from prejudices does, however, not mean free from other obstacles: for instance the “relevance–”criteria, which cause deletions and removals in the field. “Relevance”? – a fashionable concept. What does Wikipedia say about it? A scanty article does not provide a reference where or how to find more information. And it is by no means evident that a simple click on “Help” brings it! I tried to make it more accessible for the user to provide the article on ‘relevance’ with a ‘link’, but that ‘link’ was deleted immediately. A question regarding this procedure was answered with the argument that “from the realm of articles should no link lead to the editorial realm”. Why those seals? Should Wikipedia no be a free and democratic embracement of all knowledge? All that is relevant should be brought together! Are criteria of relevance not belonging to this all, are they not a fragment of open and democratically collected knowledge, and are they thus just not irrelevant?

And so one can go on: is it also irrelevant what criteria make canines, breweries, sport clubs, hospitals, car companies, vineyards, cooks, musicians, mobile phones, web sites, traffic routes relevant according to the “relevance criteria” described on 30 DIN A-4 pages? Who would be disturbed if also a very small brewery with a yearly production of less than 100 000 hectolitre and less than 100 years old, had an article in the Wikipedia?

There exists an addiction to regulate everything, an addiction combined with the great intend to deliver solely work of the highest quality, which makes many competent authors nervous so that they stop or even do not begin their valuable cooperation. One does not wonder that it is possible (just to mention an concrete example) that a young computer scientist declares the contribution of a Professor in Ancient History, the product of many days intensive work, being irrelevant and he therefore will delete that contribution.

Did not new hierarchies unfold? These are hierarchies, which are based on criteria of relevance instead of competence. In parallel we observe that more and more specific and singular references are requires because the competence of authors is no longer trusted. Administrators without disciplinary knowledge are given the task to control those references and perform deletions. One debates this issue already for years, and those debates are no less repulsive than the criteria of relevance themselves.

In the mean time, “edit wars” take place while using expressions like “Complete Nonsense”, “No Idea”, “Confusions”, “Attempts to Mislead”, so that one prefers to withdraw. We, who are already aging, had always troubles to fully accept the social levels of computer technicians. It was beyond doubt one of the reasons that in the beginnings not everyone would engage with enthusiasm in the Wikipedia project, and that several serious collaborators gave up their work after first attempts. But the abilities and competences of older contributors were necessary, despite the fact that “exclusionists” focused on severe criteria to maintain relevance and reference because these guaranteed quality.

I am a so-called “inclusionist”, a Wikipedia collaborator, which rather prefers to keep and extend than to delete an article. All knowledge of the world is free accessible for everyone — those words describe the great vision of Wikipedia, and one should keep that idea alive. It will never become fully accomplished, because of the fact that no limits or borderlines of knowledge exist. But we could try and do our best. The relevance of an article is irrelevant for me. The sole issue is, whether it is true and correct. Nobody will protest that articles, which are meaningless and insulting, purely advertising or an insult of copyrights should be deleted – nobody will complain.

Truthful and correct – within the limitations of human knowledge – are Wikipedia principles. In that sense, also this article knows its proper limitations.

English translation of an essay by Meinolf Wewel in the 2011 publication “Everything About Wikipedia” at the occasion of its 10th anniversary.