I told you I would explain why I felt comfortable referencing Wikipedia as a valid source in a post on the use of the term Democracy (here).

Who seriously uses Wikipedia as a trusted source?

A ton of college students and Joe Schmoe. And who can blame them? It’s fast, free and easy.

But is it a good idea?

I believe the better question is: Are the alternatives really all that much more trustworthy? The fact is that WikiPedia is just like ANY reference source. You don’t REALLY know who wrote it (unless you ARE the one who wrote it, of course).

Wait, wait, wait! What do you mean “you don’t know who wrote it?” The fine people at EB wrote that good Ol’ encyclopedia for us! Who are you to say they’re wrong?

But who are you to say they are RIGHT? The fact is, encyclopedias are written by humans. Often written by humans without credit to the author. Is that author an expert on the subject? What were the sources used for the information? Even a BAD research paper is required to have sources in order to be accepted as a bad research paper. Otherwise, it may as well be a work of fiction. And this is my point. Most accepted reference sources don’t site THEIR sources or don’t even give writing credits. So the question is: Why should we blindly trust them?

Ok, so maybe I’m putting blind faith in classic sources. But why trust Wikipedia? I heard that they are just publicly written articles without any editing.

But therein lies the beauty of Wikipedia. It IS a set of publicly written articles. But who else would want to write an article about a semiempirical quantum chemistry method, developed by Roald Hoffmann (Extended Huckel method) but someone who was ACTUALLY interested in such an obscure topic. Not someone who is just simply assigned the topic. Not only that, but instead of no editing at all, the whole thing is edited by the public at large. That means that if someone who knows the subject BETTER comes along, they can change it. Yep, just like that. In addition to that, an article must have SOURCES to be valid. That means that if the subject is important to you, you can track down where the author got THEIR information and verify its validity.

So is Wikipedia the perfect source? Should I use it for ALL KNOWLEDGE?!!

NO!! Egads you are dense, mysterious inquisitive voice! It just means that you can verify that the article is telling a reasonable approximation of the truth. Maybe. Fact is, Wikipedia gets errors, vandalism, and attacks like many other sites and references. While the big guys in the encyclopedia world are quick to disagree that the error rate could be relatively close between their product and Wikipedia, there are studies that show just that.  The Wikipedia article that mentions this (reliability of Wikipedia) even sites the source and says that it was not a peer reviewed study.

You see, there is really no way to be sure of the source of your information unless YOU wrote it, but then it is not a reliable source outside of yourself. It is a catch-22 from which there is no real escape. I,of course, just don’t believe that a paper should be counted against due to Wikipedia being sited as a source yet not if some independent article or paper is cited when the party reviewing the work is not studiously following up on the sources for full verification. And by that I mean track down the bastard that wrote the source and BEAT the truth out of him (or her). Or at least read the damn source articles. It would be much easier to allow a citing to Wikipedia.

So now you are thinking that I am going to droll on about the injustices of our government, right? Well that’s wrong. So I’m going to start on about conspiracy theories about how our government is REALLY run by a magic duck that can magically speak to five people who pass it’s message through the President, right? Not a chance. That’s just silly (which is how they get us all to believe it’s not true! But I digress…).

So what moves me to take time out of studies and family to write about it? The use of the term “democracy” by people who are chosen to have the mantle of leadership of our country bestowed upon them. Why does this bother me? That’s an easy one that any 8th grader should be able to tell you: We do NOT live under a democracy, we live under a REPUBLIC! To be exact, we live under a constitutional republic. It even says so on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States).

Wait. Wikipedia?

That’s right. I used Wikipedia as a reference. I know your professors, parents, or other people told you Wikipedia is wrong because it is publicly edited. But can they provide sources for their information? Oh, wait, that information can actually be gotten from Wikipedia, too. Anyways, this is another whole subject that I will address later. **edit: or now. Right here.*** Just trust my judgment for the moment.

So WHY does this irk me?

I was watching president Obama the other day and heard him reciting some drivel about preserving our democracy. Then I realized, anytime I heard Obama or any other politician speak, they referred to our government as a democracy.

These are the people who are the law-makers, law-enforcers, and law-interpreters (or as they are best known; the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the judicial branch; in order) and should know our system the BEST. The real troubling thought is that they DO know the system and that they are purposely using this terminology to lull us into submission. After all, if we think we know what’s going on, we will not question it.

So what is the difference?

There is a world of difference. I am NOT just picking over semantics here. Besides the fact that a republic is truly what we should (and still do, but barely. But again, I digress), a republic is a government where representatives speak for the masses while a democracy is where the masses speak directly. Democracy has been called “Mob Rule” in the past, and for good reason. In a Democracy, every person does have the power to put forth his or her interests, but on the other side of the coin, the majority easily crushes the minority. This gives a feeling of power to the people, which is why it would be a preferred term for the politician to make us feel all warm and cozy. The big downturn to democracy is that it QUICKLY shifts into oligarchy! This is called the “Oligarchical Shift” or the “Iron Law of Oligarchy”. While the Iron Law theory says that all types of government will eventually shift into oligarchy, a republic MAY be the exception to the rule.

Those who crave power may genuinely look to force us into a democracy to see the  shift to oligarchy solidify their power. That is just pure conjecture on my part, though.

This is where some MAY say, “But wait! Wasn’t Rome a republic and it turned into an oligarchy eventually, too?”

Well, yes and no. Rome WAS a republic at one point, but before it was an oligarchy, the republic was taken over by a dictatorship. This was NOT a natural shift. And besides that, our fore-fathers weren’t dimwits. They specifically sought a way to keep the majority threat of pure democracy under control. This brought a Constitutional Republic into being (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic, yep more wiki). That means our government was thought up by a group of guys who saw how things deteriorated in the past and tried to prevent that.

So here is the point of the history lesson today:

I see the current use of the term “democracy” as a deliberate attempt at weakening our governmental checks and balances to allow politicians on a national level to pull more power into the federal government than there should be. And I don’t appreciate it.

Does that mean I’m conservative? Maybe. But if you see the same trend, the only way to stop it is to speak up. Ironically, democratic behavior is the only way to keep our republic in check. It’s funny, but I have a feeling that this was intended at some level by those clever fore-fathers.