fb-pixel Skip to main content

Wikipedia could be the remedy for polarization

A dragonfly rests on a fan's phone long enough for her to call up the Wikipedia entry to read about it before the start of a baseball game between the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees at Fenway Park on July 7 in Boston.Mary Schwalm/Associated Press

I loved Shaun Cammack’s piece about the opinionated side of Wikipedia (“Wikipedia’s righteous, opinionated, utterly absorbing fight over the truth,” Ideas, July 10), but his conclusion that it has the same problems as any other social media platform and therefore should be avoided gave me whiplash.

It seemed like a stirring defense of Wikipedia’s principles — forcing users to “get on the same page” and reach a common understanding, despite their differences in opinions, is the remedy for misinformation and polarization. Rather than lumping Wikipedia in with the other social media platforms, we should be encouraging other platforms to take a page out of its book to foster cooperation and fight disinformation.


I also disagree with his assertion that the site isn’t aesthetically pleasing. It is one of the few sites that I actually find enjoyable to browse on my phone.

Daniel Houwen

Jamaica Plain