“So, we should, like, have our own hoser Wikipedia, eh? Beauty thinking, eh? ”

--Bob and Doug McKenzie ...or what I was thinking they would say. (For those of you who are unaware of these beer drinking fellows... For shame!) Clearly this quote is not from the Great White North hosers but the idea seems so simple I wondered if they would’ve thought of it. Well, the thought, perhaps, isn’t that simple but I certainly was shocked that the thought never crossed my mind. In the article we read a few weeks back by John Jordan ‘For a Canadian Wikipedia’ it was discussed how countries, namely Canada, should have their own Wikipedia so that they have their own historical perspectives recorded.

When I read the article, I realized that I never even thought about how Wikipedia is language-centered instead of country-centered. Some people may be thinking...well of course it’s language-centered Sarah! But ...how does that even make sense? Obviously each country has their own history or viewpoints on issues so why would Wikipedia assume that they should all be gathered into one language- centered wikipedia? In terms of history, each country has its own version. So the English language wikipedia is for many countries such as England, the US and Canada. But we all have different perspectives on our collective history. So how does the Wikipedia entry accurately present each side? (It can’t) Seriously, how has Wikipedia not even thought of this before? As Jordan points out these various perspectives are all merged into one Wikipedia description for all of the English language Wikipedia. So what’s the solution?

Initially, I thought we should have the different accounts together under one topic heading. It made sense because then the reader could make their own conclusion from the information. You know, like the War of 1812: then there’s the US opinion, then Canada (though they were British subjects at the time, I know), and the British. But then I thought, and as Jordan points out, there is a “lack of unanimity among historians even within one country”. For example, some historians (and mostly the public) love, and pride themselves on, Billy Bishop, our great Canadian hero of WWI. However, there are some historians that truly believe Bishop is a fake. His record hits were mostly from his own account and the German reports on planes shot down apparently don’t match up. So now what would Canada do? One topic might be changed numerous times or have so many entries that anyone (lets say those naive students that use it as their main source for essays), get confused. And so...I do agree with Jordan’s suggestion for a separate Canadian Wikipedia but I must add something to his idea. I think that the Canadian Wikipedia would have to be able to provide the various perspectives of each topic. (Instead of people changing it back and forth) Wouldn’t that make it easier for the reader to come to their own conclusion? Then, supposedly, there wouldn’t be any bias. Now the question is whether it’s possible or not. Will the Canadian Wikipedians be up to the task of preparing these Wikipedia entries? Can it be done properly; without any bias? Perhaps this is asking too much, but hey! It may be something to look into.