Midterm question 2

2. In Wikipedia: The Truth in Numbers the message seems to be: no longer do the victors write the history books, we do: you, me, and everyone else. How is social media (twitter, blogs) forwarding this idea? What gives someone authority to "write history" and why should we listen to them? Is there a hierarchy of authorities? ie. is what someone like Seth Godin says more important? What should be taken as canon?



Social media champions the idea that anyone can write history simply by giving anyone and everyone that very opportunity. Now, if a major event happens, anybody can write how they feel and post that into cyberspace. It used to be that history came from newspapers, broadcast accounts or literary records. Not anymore. Social media users are recording history without really knowing it.







I agree that everyone should be able to voice their opinions, but I don’t think anyone should have the license to write human history. The authority to write history should come only after meticulous research and reporting to ensure all angles are covered. I’d rather read an encyclopedia than hear Buddy from next door tell me about recent historic events.


The beauty of Wikipedia is that there is no heirarchy of authority. The opinions are anonymous and that's why it works. No one is better than anyone else. As I said, I don't think Wikipedia should be considered exact history, but I like that people have the chance to give their own two cents.

As far as if there is a canon. I think it depends on the issue. There are recognized experts in every field, and they have the experience and have earned their legitimacy. The work of these people, like a Noam Chomsky, will also be more authoritative than any average person's take on things.


Some additional reading I found interesting when forming my opinions. Click here and here.