Wikipedia

Nature or Nurture?
Mom and I disagree about whether religion is a genetic function of our brains or just a bad habit Homo sapiens picked up over the years. My point, that ‘faith’ is a brain function, came to mind as I was considering a recent interview about Wikipedia.
The news story concerned the proof that an Exxon computer operater rewrote the history of the Valdez oil spill, that Diebold rewrote articles concerning its voting machines, that a CIA computer address was used to change the histories of Nixon and Reagan, as well as a hundred other such falsifications that had been discovered.
While admitting Wikipedia had been used for propaganda, the interviewee stated that Wikipedia was good source for information. My thoughts at the time were: what if less obvious stories had been changed, who was the fact checker for obscure information, how do I know that any particular article at any particular time hadn’t just been falsely rewritten, how far could a piece of disinformation travel between the time it was posted and the time it was corrected?
But I’m just a skeptic. Tell me to believe something, and I’ll ask why. But there is something about Wikipedia that inspires loyalty and faith. Like any name-brand detergent, people have confidence that what they are buying is the best product regardless of proof. Wikipedia’s acolytes are willing believers.
I know that encyclopedias are often wrong, that newspapers and books have agendas, and that history has more than one point of view. When I take information from any source, I am skeptical. But Wikipedia has a religious aspect to it that is lacking in other formats. People ‘believe in’ Wikipedia. They are loyal to Wikipedia just as they would be to their favorite soft drink.
My position is that religion, consumer brand names, and trusting Wikipedia are all related to the same brain function.
When someone introduces a line of logic that disputes that, I will carefully consider the evidence. Skepticism is so much more fun that faith.
Nancy Sherer