In this past week I have consulted Wikipedia on a few issues (keeping in mind that this is not the only source of information).
For those of you who are not familiar with the idea of Wikipedia: This is, for us older types, what we used to call an encyclopedia. On the internet you can find wiki sites. Here anyone (well, almost anyone) can place their knowledge of a subject into a giant database. Originally anything went. Except for a few rules – I think maybe even truth was in there, although obscured by the desire to allow diversity (but that’s another day’s discussion on the postmodern age).
Nowadays, when an entry is found lacking, the “stub” is flagged and you can add your helpful information. You are expected to have foot notes (cross references, articles, etc.) to verify the veracity of the information. I recently found another “rule”.
If you “list” information, the data is flagged as being “better” understood in prose form. Narrative has triumphed. As I was growing up, I loved to listen to lectures that presented point after point. Often point six was prior to point seven for a reason. I didn’t need linking narrative. I could figure it out myself.
Our current society prefers story and that comes in written, visual, dramatic, sensate, verbal, and many other forms. I appreciate those forms – and I’ve worked in many of them. But, I’m still a product of a previous age. Get the information to me quickly, in point form, and I’m good with that.
Although I do enjoy a well written article. Hopefully whoever edits/revises these Wikipedia articles is a good writer and does not obscure the information or bore us so we don’t even read the information.