Your Right To Be An Idiot

Stolen from somewhere ...
By Tony Long
Dec. 22, 2005
PT
Let's get something straight from theget-go. The First Amendment issacrosanct. Freedom of speech,freedom of the press, freedom ofthought, the whole ball of wax -- it'sthe DNA of the United States, thestuff America is made of. You don'tmess with it, ever. Without it, we'reNorth Korea with a few shoppingmalls.No lying, fear-mongeringadministration, no sanctimoniousred-state senator, no judge with anax to grind has the right to screwaround with it. Even those of you farto the right of sanity must see thewisdom in that. Remember thoseguys with the powdered wigs and thetight breeches and the bad teeth?Jefferson and Hamilton and thatmob? Those were your guys, once.For the sake of what follows, let'spretend the First Amendment stillmatters, even to you.So, what to do with Wikipedia? And,in a broader sense, what to do withthe free flow of information on theinternet?In a word, nothing.Having access to the internet is alittle like handing a kid a loaded gun.In the wrong hands it can beintellectually lethal. In terms of beinga reliable source, the web is aminefield to be navigated verycarefully. There is plenty of usefulinformation to be had, but the placeis a nest of vipers, too.Wait a minute, sez you. Don't blamethe internet. What about books?Books can be full of lies, too. Theysure can. Lying has been aroundsince man first 1.) evolved the abilityto speak or 2.) got his sorry asstossed out of the Garden of Eden. Butthe internet, with its instant access tovast amounts of information from anendless number of sources, is verydifferent from anything that hascome before.Still, do you regulate the internet to"protect" us from ingestinginformation that is wrong,deliberately misleading, whacked out,even harmful? Uh-uh. That's yourown responsibility, as an educatedparticipant in a free society. (The"educated" part is a bit tricky thesedays, I'll grant you, but that's fodderfor another column.)There's an old expression in thenewspaper business: "If your mothersays she loves you, check it out." Inother words, make sure your bullshitdetector is always on. Be skeptical ofwhat you're told, of what you read.Cross-check your facts with othersources. What applies in thenewsroom applies tenfold on theinternet, where anybody is free topost any damned thing they want to.Which brings us to Wikipedia, theso-called citizens' encyclopedia.Yeah, so some cretin thought he wasbeing cute by posting a falsebiography of John Siegenthaler Sr., adistinguished journalist who onceserved as an administrative assistantto Robert Kennedy, linking him to theassassinations of both Kennedybrothers. In copping to the deed, theguy said he didn't realize Wikipedia isconsidered, in the online world atleast, to be a legitimate informationresource. It was a joke, he said.Siegenthaler, not surprisingly, hit theroof. (Especially since the bogus biolanguished on the site for fourmonths, despite his efforts to get itremoved.) He lambasted Wikipedia'scredibility in an op-ed piece but, tohis credit, never suggested thatslapping tighter controls on theinternet is the answer to this kind ofidiocy.He didn't even indulge in the greatAmerican pastime, filing suit. Insteadhe chose to accept the guy's apology.But Siegenthaler, the formerpublisher of The Tennessean whofounded The Freedom Forum FirstAmendment Center at VanderbiltUniversity, understands theabsolutely critical need to protect theright of free speech, especially in thecurrent frenzied political climate.While the founders couldn't haveanticipated the internet, theirimperative still stands. Freedom ofspeech trumps everything in a freesociety. (As long as nobody getskilled, which is why you can't yell"Fire!" in a crowded theater.) It hasto. Without it, a society is no longerfree. That's why the Nazis get tomarch through Skokie, Illinois, andwhy Rush Limbaugh gets to have aradio show. It's revolting sometimes,but to deny a single individual theright to free expression is to beginsliding down that slippery slopetoward authoritarianism. The dulcetdrone of Limbaugh's boorishness isthe price you pay to breathe free.The problem with a site likeWikipedia, of course, is that there isno responsible vetting process, noprofessional editors or fact-checkerson staff to verify accuracy. Wikipediarelies on you, the general public (orWikipedians, in their argot), to fulfillthat role and -- generally speakingand meaning no disrespect -- you'renot qualified to do it. But you come atthe right price (free), which keepscosts down. And Wikipedia argues,with some justification, that a factualerror can be caught and fixed just aseasily by an interested professor or aknowledgeable amateur as it can byan editor.The trap is that nothing is vetted beforehand. Mistakes, deliberate ornot, can only be caught after posting.Wikipedia presumes a kind ofcommunal sense of responsibility, abelief that, given the opportunity,most people will be honest. AsHemingway once wrote in anothercontext, "Isn't it pretty to think so?"The reality is that blind trust issomething of a gamble. But in thewide-open world bequeathed to usby the internet, and in a free societygenerally, it's a gamble we have tobe willing to take.The alternative is too depressing tocontemplate.-