Wikipedia Mundi

I'm wondering about Wikipedian faith. Not Wiccan faith. Wikipedian faith. Here's the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia page about Wikipedia:

Wikipedia is a free, multilingual encyclopedia project supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Its name is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a technology for creating collaborative websites, from the Hawaiian word wiki, meaning 'quick') and encyclopedia. Wikipedia's 12 million articles (2.8 million in the English Wikipedia) have been written collaboratively by volunteers around the world, and almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone who can access the Wikipedia website. Launched in January 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, it is currently the most popular general reference work on the Internet.

Critics of Wikipedia accuse it of systemic bias and inconsistencies, and target its policy of favoring consensus over credentials in its editorial process.

I know what you're thinking. This will be another well deserved potshot at the silliness that is Wikipedia. And since this blog usually considers things religious, it will dismiss the contemporary religious world as similarly shallow and misinformed.

But I think Wikipedia is cool. Go ahead. Go to the Wikipedia page on some topic you fancy yourself an expert about. Admit it. It's a decent encyclopedia page.

We've long heard about the increasing suspicion of old authority structures. It's a trend that's been bewailed and bemoaned ad nauseam. Civilization will unravel. Religious and moral life will disintegrate. Chaos will reign.

But maybe something else is going on. The fear that has been drummed up about this age is that when the old authorities (Popes and Presidents and Bibles and Grandparents) lose their grip on us, we're left to our own individual opinions about what is right and wrong, about what is true. But maybe that's not quite right.

Maybe there is a collective wisdom at work. A Wikipedia Mundi, you might say.

Now this sounds like a fairly unchristian notion--that truth happens in us. But it's not. The early fights in the Christian tradition were waged against gnosticism. And one of the main problems the church had with gnostics was with the idea that truth comes in individual portions, packaged in heaven and delivered directly from God into the minds of the enlightened few.

But there was an early instinct in Christianity towards revelation in community. Jesus said he'd keep showing up where two or three are gathered in his name. Paul helped the earliest Christians start imagining themselves as members of a body--the body of Christ, no less. Hands, Feet, eyes, ears... parts that don't make much sense or do much good without their other compliments. Parts that are foolish if they think they're the whole.

We're told that this is a godless time. That people are now their own religious authorities and organized religion is dying. But what if this is just a time in which a new kind of organization is emerging? A wikipedian organization. And what if the Christian faith, in fact, has a rich vocabulary for the notion that God, truth, meaning and the likes come to us in our collective life.

What's shifting is that the magic is no longer believed to be in the hands of the priest or the literal text of the Bible. It's in us. Not in each of us. But in all of us. And maybe this isn't a time for denominations and dioceses to disappear, but rather for them to redefine themselves, or maybe to remember what they were supposed to have been all along. Structures for collective wisdom more than individual authority.

I've heard that a commedian mocked Wikipedia early on by inserting some foolishness in a page and watching it change. But the rest of the story (off camera) was that in a matter of moments "we" had corrected the post. Something larger was at work, and that larger something pushed in the direction of truth.

Could this be like that spirit that blows where it will, but insists on blowing through us?