Is Wikipedia Big Brother?

Big Brother, of course, is the most recognizable concept from George Orwell's chilling 1984, the representation of ever-present big government that sees all and has something to say about most of it. But there was something else in 1984 at least as chilling as the ever-present two-way screen--the ability (and willingness) to rewrite history.

The other day, a conversation about Web 2.0 on Blog Catalog got me thinking about the nature of user generated content, and more specifically about the fact that Wikipedia, the best established and most credible outlet for user generated content, is subject to change at any moment. Unlike the history books of old, the updated version is all that remains. We were neer allies with Eurasia!

Perhaps coincidentally, the discussion was started by an historian who had commented on his history blog about the need to consider history from the perspective of its participants rather than from our own. So, naturally, the issues converged in my mind, and I found myself thinking about 1984 in a whole new way. You see, as chilling as the idea of wiping out history and forbidding the mention of past events always seemed to me, I always viewed it as something conscious. I always assumed that those characters were somehow playing along, were pretending that they didn't remember when Eastasia had been the enemy so as to stay out of trouble.

But suddenly, the combination of thinking about how our perspectives aren't necessarily a valid place from which to assess the actions of others and thinking about how "updated" is coming to mean "replaced", I found myself wondering if perhaps those theoretical future characters from the past weren't playing along at all. I found myself wondering whether maybe, when the records had been thoroughly updated and time went on and the details grew fuzzy, they really didn't clearly remember the history that had occurred in their own lifetimes.

There have been at least two cases of court rulings citing Wikipedia as an authoritative source--this source that can be created by anyone with access to a computer and altered minutes later. Aside from accuracy, it's not a static reference; the information cited by the court might not be there a few years later when the precedent is cited, or even a few months later when the case goes up on appeal. If the authoritative source is continually shifting, what does that say about the truth? And as we move increasingly into electronic media that can be and often is erased with a few clicks or a server failure, where will we find our landmarks. Will Google cache one day be our only source of historical comparison?