Monday, October 8, 2007

Everything I need to know I learned from wikipedia

As students, I'm sure everyone is familiar with the unclear words of so called scholarly text. However, most of us know that just because big words are used doesn't make it a sucess. The same can be said for the situation with wikipedia. As when blogs first arr ivied, wikipedia has stirred controversy due to it's distinct lack of traditional methods. With blogs, journalists found that they no longer get to decide what news the world hears and, esp., the extent of what it is broadcast. This power now resided, once again, in the people who were able to not only post their opinion but argue with those views that they do not believe. Well this is a wonderful gift to society, the suggestion of blogs as journalism has many traditional scholars indigent (http://www.jdlasica.com/articles/nieman.html). This can be seen with Wikipedia as well. The encyclopedia is primarily the point of all that is elitist. It is enlisted by high class scholars and as McHenry stated in the readings (proudly), it is a thing that (supposedly) most people don't understand. But wikipedia changed all that. Not only can anyone contribute, it is also free (a primary cornerstone in the selling of encyclopedias). No longer do the elitists have the power to decide the info. we receive. As with blogs, we now get different perspectives and sources that the original Britannica never offered. Is this a symbol of another lash against elitist tyranny? Knowledge is power and these scholars feel they are losing that hold. Wikipedia, reliable or not, is a sign of a new people centered world that fails to cover up events. That's what it is really about.

No comments: