What a crazy article. I mean it touches on so many wild things that have been and are going on. I never thought of Wikipedia being involved in the digital vs. paper news fight, but here it is as a reliable near streaming news source. I also can hardly believe this crazy society that Wikipedia has created where friend, enemies, and factions have formed so solidly. So what I intend to do is talk about how everything that happens around Wikipedia happens in the real world, but only different.
To start Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Just like any one papered edition Wikipedia has editors, stories, and sourced data. On the other hand these editors work for free and have limited academic knowledge. The stories are alive! Meaning that they are never set in stone, and many are constantly developing as events transpire. Just as the stories are live, so are the data which fuels these stories. In a regular encyclopedia stories aren't really dead, but more hibernating between editions. But who wants to spend the money every few years for a ton of books and a little new information?
In the same way academia has a societal hierarchy so does Wikipedia, but their's is different. Wikipedia has an internal promotion system based upon a contributor's prominence in the community. There is no power struggle in the community, only a sense of humility and duty. In my opinion if academia could throw off their enormous egos based on degrees from schools that many Wikipedia contributors will eventually get, then Wikipedia and academia could make something incredibly useful and relevant.
I said I was amazed that Wikipedia is now a news source, and I shouldn't be surprised as regular encyclopedias are news sources also. Only Wikipedia is faster as it is sponsored by interest, unpaid workers who have a dedication to a product instead of a lagging, paid obligation to a few books.
Overall I think this article about Wikipedia has increased my appreciation for it immensely. My favorite part had to be about the vandalism. I really liked the kind of comical good-guy bad-guy mentality when they mentioned "Willy on Wheels" who would place "on wheels" beside thousands of article headlines.
Also as a final question: Do you think Wikipedia could be on the way out even though it has only started to realize its news potential?
You tell me your thoughts, I'll tell you mine.
(9/10)
Charlie, I like you have become very interested on this idea that everything on the web happens in the real world but differently and this idea that Wikipedia is a prime example of this skewed relationship between the computer screen and the real-world scene. One of the points that you emphasized that caught my attention was this notion that Wikipedia is a source source of information, but its stories are ALIVE. This immediately made me consider the debacle I had last week when I was assigned a chapter in Professor Ghallaugher's textbook. Rather than read the article online I choose to read my printed version from last semester. However, unbeknownst to me the material on the web has been amended and updated! Obviously, as times change and our information becomes more accurate or informative of society, our writings will change and evolve, something that Wikipedia can embrace fully. Wikipedia has the unique ability to change its material with the times and not after the fact, making it a tool that our fast paced and ever evolving society will demand for years to come. So, no- I don't think Wikipedia is exiting the building anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteWho has enormous egos?
ReplyDeleteWhen we were talking about wikipedia in class and Professor Kane was talking about how sites are rated on validity, and how sources are actually very legitimate, I kept thinking about how teachers will never let you use wikipedia for a source in papers. This seems unfair. There are so many worthwhile sources contributing to this site and by not taking advantage of it because it's not an "academic journal" is a waste. I hope that wikipedia sticks around. I learn a lot of valuable stuff from that site.
ReplyDeletePs. I like your blogging style a lot. Keep up the good work.
Wikipedia can and is a news source, as described in the article with examples, but I worry about the effect this might have. I think it can and is useful in some situations. It can provide quick up to date information that might not be available elsewhere, but I also have a concern with it being used for this purpose. My concern has a parallel with a concern some have with Wikipedia all together, and it is the admins. They admins are given power to protect articles and ban certain people. I worry that some point a controversial new story will be unfolding and the admins will step in to deal with a situation, but this might take away what Wikipedia is built on, that the sum of the knowledge of everyone is great. At this point the article becomes what the admins want it to be.
ReplyDeleteAs for you question I think Wikipedia is not on the way out, but I do think it is slowing down a lot. I think that it is starting to lose its hype, which is causing it to lose some of its very important contributors. I believe that soon it will lose enough of them that the vandals will get the upper hand. I think once this happens it will become obsolete, though I hope it never does.
I don't think the end of wikipedia will be a quick process. I am sure that most of the articles on the site which are not controversial will pretty much be left alone, except in small vandalism cases. However even a small number of admins who remain devoted will be able to correct such problems relatively quickly and easily. And I forget the exact wording, but it was discussed in class that only when a technology becomes boring does it become useful. I hope that wikipedia follows that trend and stays useful for a long time.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this article I also found the Wikipedia's concept of hierarchy fascinating and refreshing. In the real world egos and entitlement definitely can get in the way of duty. I'm not sure Wikipedia will ever truly be accepted as a citation in the academic world. The closest I've come to having a teacher prompt us to search through Wikipedia was to look at the Citation Section for valuable sources on our topics. Doesn't something based on "valuable sources" mean that its content has some sort of worth as well? I agree with the above that Wikipedia's demise will be slow.. only quickened by the take over of some other more valuable tool or way of aggregating mass amounts of knowledge. Great comparisons!
ReplyDelete-Meredith Malm