Wikipedia is history

The problem with an open for all encyclopedia, where anyone and everyone can edit is that, everybody else can unedit and revert the changes to what existed before. It is common knowledge that history is written by winners, and then many years later,  the loser picks up courage or manages to live, and writes the other side of the story. Now you have two sides of the story. Everybody believing one side and doubting the other.

Wikipedia - The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit !

I had believed (although it was with appropriate caution), in wikipedia as a medium because like democracy and freedom, this free encyclopedia offered a source of information that is different from the established ones. It still does, but recently it appears that the established sources are slowly creeping into this medium too, diluting the efforts to keep it truly free and open. Before you start to think that this a true critical analysis of wikipedia, let me state frankly that it is not. I am engaged in this diatribe, because i was not able to enforce my edits in wikipedia. This is therefore a biased opinion, but i think still very valid, about a encyclopedia that everyone can edit, but really not.

Recently i was spurred by a story i read from my Amar Chitra Katha comics about Rana Beni Madho, to log on to the internet to know more about a song the british soldiers were quoted as singing in the comic.

Where have you been all day
Beni Madho, O Beni Madho!
Why are you so scared of British pluck
Beni Madho, O Beni Madho!
Because to beat you is not my luck
Beni Madho, O Beni Madho!

I found a couple of sites with reference to the song and lyrics and then landed on wikipedia site regarding the 1857 sepoy mutiny, regarded in India, as the First war of Independence. The empty web page was redirected to a more detailed page called Indian Rebellion of 1857. While there was nothing inappropriate about the title itself the article, however, seemed biased towards the english point of view. I attempted to insert a few statements to correct this perception in the intro, but these edits were quickly undone by someone. I researched the person, and my bias was solidified because of their origins (some where in briton). I was referred to the talk page (the discussion page for article), which had a caution indicating that this page contained information which was ‘controversial’, and required a discussion and consensus before being posted and approved.

In view of many Indians, and today’s updated knowledge base, the 1857 mutiny, was more than just another mutiny or rebellion, it was not the first, and certainly was not the last war against the British soldiers or the East India Company. It is regarded as the First war of Independence, because it was not isolated to a state or a small region. It covered several small principalities across the gangetic plains, north/west India, central India etc. The british army and the company clearly had divided the country and fought the rebellion and war, by using Indian soldiers against other Indians. They however were scared that more of these men will rebel, that many european and white soldiers were brought in to fight the war. The rebels were not simply fighting because of a ‘grease’, but that happened to simply be a catalyst to spark the fire of independence amongst many of these people. Many are led to believe that Indian sub-continent was united only, because the british ruled the whole country. Partly true, but the british were not the first to control such large parts of the country, though they were the last. The pan-indian image and culture predates the arrival of the East India Company and the british governance.

In summary, i still think wikipedia is an important source of information. But it clearly is only ‘another’ source. Controversial topics require confirmation like quotes, speeches, writings, which will come only from established sources. What this means is that, in the anals of history  or atleast for sometime to come on wikipedia, Beni Madho and his exploits will remain a mere myth, compared to the so called recorded truths by british soldiers and company officials. These written statements have more value, only because of the same thorn in the flesh of history, that it is always written by the winner.