In the article “The Best Wikipedia Pages Are the Ones We Fight Over,” originally written by Zaid Jilani in “Greater Good,” April 17, 2019, then later added to the website ReasonstoBeCheerful.world on October 28, 2020, Jilani suggests that Wikipedia and other similar sites provide a polarized, but effective atmosphere that results in positive problem-solving. The author argues that bringing together groups of intellectually diverse people results in more positive work done than done by groups that are similar to each other. I believe that the author is correct in their stance that diverse groups produce more effective results than similar groups. The first reason that Wikipedia results in higher-quality work than other sites is the fact that
…show more content…
Although a group of similar-minded intellectuals may arrive at an answer more quickly and easily, it does not mean that the solution arrived at is the best solution. Jilani states that “political and intellectual diversity can benefit a team by helping team members see flaws in their own ideas.” If all of the members agreed with each other on every single idea, it would make it impossible to spot flaws in the foundation of the ideas. It is the reason that debates are so powerful: reinforcing the foundation of a stance and protecting it against counter-attacks results in innovative thinking that can not be built alone. If these polarized groups work so well together, why are they not formed more commonly? Jilani reasons that though Wikipedia created an environment perfect for this kind of diversity, many other sources provide an environment that provides the opposite effect. As one of the most complex and difficult issues to debate, politics is moving in a direction that gradually splits individuals apart. Jilani asserts that “self-identification with labels” is one of the major factors that are causing politics to split apart. These labels lead to discrimination in areas that don’t even involve politics, such as colleges, job hirings, and grant applications. This split forms two
Although a group of similar-minded intellectuals may arrive at an answer more quickly and easily, it does not mean that the solution arrived at is the best solution. Jilani states that “political and intellectual diversity can benefit a team by helping team members see flaws in their own ideas.” If all of the members agreed with each other on every single idea, it would make it impossible to spot flaws in the foundation of the ideas. It is the reason that debates are so powerful: reinforcing the foundation of a stance and protecting it against counter-attacks results in innovative thinking that can not be built alone. If these polarized groups work so well together, why are they not formed more commonly? Jilani reasons that though Wikipedia created an environment perfect for this kind of diversity, many other sources provide an environment that provides the opposite effect. As one of the most complex and difficult issues to debate, politics is moving in a direction that gradually splits individuals apart. Jilani asserts that “self-identification with labels” is one of the major factors that are causing politics to split apart. These labels lead to discrimination in areas that don’t even involve politics, such as colleges, job hirings, and grant applications. This split forms two