Happy Birthday Wikipedia!
An Armenian Wiki birthday cake. Wikimedia Commons. Photo by Beko.
Wikipedia is officially 15 today. Hooray! I love it — even though the editors are mean about astrology. If you want to find out about just about anything from Alabama to Zoroastrianism, Wiki will get you started.
The secret of the site’s success is, as founder Jimmy Wales writes, collaboration. It’s an example of the hive mind actually working. The Sun, it’s centre, is in Cardinal earthy Capricorn, the sign that connects practicality with spirit. But Mercury, the mind, Neptune (Big Mind) and Uranus (Inspired Mind) are all in Fixed airy Aquarius, the sign of collaboration and comradeship. These are the multitudinous contributors bringing nectar to the hive, fixing the honeycomb, making the wax, tending the grubs.
The honey is data. Jupiter in Gemini is all about gathering detailed information. This is the planet of expansion in the sign of journalism, information and storytelling. Jupiter sends a nice trine to that Neptune, but interestingly it’s retrograde. In fact, Jupiter was stationing on the day Wiki was born and would turn direct 10 days later. A station in a birth chart adds strength and focus to a planet.
Guess what, Saturn was stationing too, and would turn direct on the same day. Saturn in practical Taurus sends a nice to trine to the Sun. Wiki needs a good book-keeper to keep going even if it is not-for-profit.
Venus is exalted in Pisces: the collective is beautiful. The Moon is somewhere in Libra — although with no birth time, you can’t say where. This creates an airy Grand Trine of sorts between Jupiter in Gemini, Mercury, Uranus and Neptune in Aquarius and the Moon. Libra adds balance, and the balance comes from the “people”, who are represented by the Moon in mundane astrology.
Of course, we all know that it’s never perfect in Wiki, but Librans kind of like that. It means they can keep on trying. Certain topics are riddled with partisan editing, but on the whole it works. This airy Grand Trine speaks of Open Systems, which Wiki shows work better than closed ones.
People laughed at the idea that anyone could edit an encyclopaedia back in 2001; now we know it’s true. (I spent my pre-astrologer incarnation editing illustrated reference books and believe me, books are no more reliable than Wiki — indeed less so.) The beauty of Wiki is that you can follow the references on a decent article. The onus is always on the reader to be sceptical and check the sources. Wiki is never feels as if its claiming to be the ultimate answer to any question, just the best of what we know now.
It’s interesting that the Uranus-Pluto square — directly on Wiki North Node — seems to have been good for the site, strengthening it. Uranus and Pluto are natally in good aspect, a buzzy sextile, which is always the key.
I wonder what will happen when Neptune comes to the natal Venus and then Pluto comes to the natal Sun. There could be the danger of a corporate takeover.
Wikipedia’s independence has become a cornerstone of our culture in fifteen short years. It’s wonderful — and terrifying when you think about it too hard.
No birth time so this is just set for 0° Aries
I’m sure google would love to get its hands on Wikipedia! And then I predict massive censorship. Even more than now! And then a counter wiki – set up by renegades when Neptune makes its ingress into Aries in 2025! That’s only nine years!!!
I was thinking about Rupert Murdoch (Neptune) to do a take-over (Pluto) of Wiki ?!
mimi
Wikipedia is not neutral at all. I only check on it pure scientific stuff and geography. All this rest is biased. Wikipedia is not only against astrology but also to all natural and complementary medicines, including the biographies of people who have contributed in these fields.
There is a precise intent that every time a content is changed in favour to such fields there are many that change it against.
Wikipedia had many requests by many organisations to change its behaviour but keeps on perpetuating it.
Yes Christina, in a book the information could be not correct but at least I know who wrote it. There is a biography, a bibliography or whatever it takes that I can voice my opinion to.
In Wikipedia it is not so.
I once used to donate to Wikipedia but I do not contribute anymore.
We are surrounded by information but most of it is manipulated so the minority or what is not “scientifically” correct can not emerge.
Sure it’s biased. Information is always biased. It’s up to the reader to keep that in mind. There is no neutral source of information. However, having many contributors does help in a lot of areas, and we are living in a world in which we know to check our sources and our sources’ sources.
And I have to disagree with you about, say, encylopedias. I have worked on many reference books, and the reader does not know who has really written them.
You just need to look at any encylopedia from any time in the last 100 years and you will find that it reflects the biases and prejudices of its time — in just the way that Wiki does.
Ok so let us say we do not know who wrote the book but I can answer to that book in a format that is tangible referring to that book, with that ISBN number etc.
And I know encyclopaedias are not neutral. Any book or work of any kind is not neutral because it comes from an individual and an individual perceives life through his/her own peculiar perception. Even what I am writing here it is not neutral.
In Wikipedia it is not possible. Even if you change the information that is not what the “scientific community” or “Big pharma” or “powers that be” want then it will be changed. There is no way that it is going to be left there.
If it is really going to be an information by all and to all, then both or how many parties are there, should be able to express their ideas, have the right for them to keep them published and it is up to the reader to decide on which to side to go.
talking of birthdays, its so exciting, new planet ,beyond pluto,(which is still planet) discovered and reported today ,when sun went into aquarius, think it will be very pertinent and prevalent ,to astrology and astrologers.
I did not realise that wikipedia is directly edited by corporations to their own benefit. Ever heard of astroturfing? Its the opposite of grassroots.
Astroturf and manipulation of media messages | Sharyl Attkisson | TEDxUniversityofNevada
That is exactly what I was saying. Thank you.
Not supposed to be that big – just meant to be a link. Dammit!!!