Week15 -LYU YANGCHENG 2021008895


If Nietzsche meets Wikipedia: Utopia of free will, or illusion of slave knowledge?


Summary: Does Wikipedia really represent "free will"?


Wikipedia is a typical "decentralized knowledge platform" - everyone can edit, everyone can read, and everyone can participate, which seems to be the embodiment of the spirit of freedom. However, from Nietzsche's perspective, it does not necessarily represent true "free will". Nietzsche emphasized that "free will" is not to do whatever you want, but the individual's active creation and responsibility for fate, desires and social pressures.


In contrast, Wikipedia emphasizes neutrality (NPOV), prohibits original research, and relies on mainstream views... Do these rules really encourage individual freedom, or instead form a mild and invisible "slave order"? This is a question worth pondering.


2. Interesting point: How might Nietzsche "spray" Wikipedia?


Nietzsche's style is sharp, flamboyant, and aggressive. He criticizes "mediocre morality", ridicules "herd thinking", and doubts all "universal truths". If he were to browse Wikipedia, he might complain:


> "Even truth must first obtain 'consensus'. This is not a victory of knowledge, but suicide of will."


Several interesting scenarios:


He looked up the entry for "free will" and found that his philosophy was simplified to a summary. He angrily flipped the table: "This is an insult to thought!"


He tried to edit the entry, but was warned by the administrator: "Please do not add personal opinions." He sneered: "You don't even dare to have 'thoughts', so what freedom are you talking about?"


He found that all content must have "authoritative citations" and might write: "Authoritative citations are slaves' worship of power, not evidence of thought."


In short, Nietzsche might regard Wikipedia as a "concentration camp of thoughts disguised as freedom": everyone can speak, but they must say "acceptable" words.


III. Discussion and questions: The paradox of free knowledge and individual will?


Nietzsche's thoughts provide a very sharp perspective, allowing us to rethink the following questions:


1. Does Wikipedia's pursuit of "neutrality" cover up the real conflict of ideas?


If all positions must be "evenly displayed", does it mean that those sharp and challenging ideas are suppressed?


2. How can individual creativity survive on a platform that emphasizes "consensus"?


Nietzsche advocates "be yourself", but can this "self" exist in an environment where rules must be followed and disputes must be avoided?


3. What is true free will?

Is it like Wikipedia, where everyone can participate? Or is it, as Nietzsche said, a "responsibility of the strong" that only a very small number of people can bear?


Conclusion:


Wikipedia represents the contemporary people's expectation of "intellectual freedom", and Nietzsche reminds us: true freedom is never given by rules, but fought for by the soul.


So, if you really believe in "free will", you might as well ask yourself in one click, one edit, and one thought:


"Am I participating in consensus, or forging my will?"

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Introduction to the blog

This blog is a digital forum where students from Collective Intelligence in Practice: Understanding Wikipedia at the Hanyang University in Korea (2025) will discuss their weekly readings and activities. Each week you are expected to post a blog post on our blog and make a comment on another student's post. You can do so on one of the following three topics: a) You can blog about the readings for the next week. As you are expected to do the assigned readings FOR the lectures they are assigned to, you are expected to post your blog and comments BEFORE that lecture. An ideal commentary should be about half a page in length (~200 words), divided into three clearly labeled sections in which you: 1) summarize in your own words of materials you read; 2) mention any new, interesting, or unusual items learned; 3) identify at least one question, concern, or discussion angle that is either problematic in some respect or could have been elaborated more. This question is likely to be incor...
Read more

Week 1. My Recent Wikipedia Edits - Jeong seolah (정설아)

I made several edits to the Wikipedia page for 'Daegu'.  Daegu, located in the southeastern part of South Korea, is the third-largest urban area in the country, following Seoul and Busan. With a population exceeding 2.3 million, it is the fourth-largest metropolitan city in South Korea and the second-largest in the Yeongnam region after Busan. Often referred to together with the surrounding North Gyeongsang Province as Daegu-Gyeongbuk, this region is home to over 5 million residents. Known for its rich history and vibrant economy, Daegu stands as a key player in South Korea's cultural and industrial landscape. Below is a summary of the changes I contributed. 1) Summarize and link Sights Section:  - Improved clarity by changing “mountains keep many traditional temples” to “the mountains keep many traditional temples.” Mosque Controversy Section:  - Simplified a sentence by removing “and of the authorities.” Festivals Section:  - Made phrasing smoother by changing “tho...
Read more

Week4 - Review about the readings for the next week. - Jo HyeonSeong (조현성)

 1. Summarize in my own words of materials. The book is primarily about the openness of Wikipedia. Openness means that anyone can participate in the creation and editing of articles without any qualifications. Openness can be a double-edged sword. While it means that you can edit without having expert knowledge of a topic, it also means that you can participate even if you have expert knowledge. For experts, articles written by non-experts can come across as inaccurate knowledge, which can anger experts. This anger can also be a catalyst for Wikipedia to continue to improve. However, articles edited only by non-experts can cause misunderstandings and convey incorrect information, so openness can be considered a double-edged sword. In fact, it sometimes causes some conflict, such as Wales' negative stance. Openness also means freedom from copyright, which means anyone can take it and use it anywhere. That is why the knowledge of non-experts can have greater impact. That is why appro...
Read more