I think my headline pretty much says it all, but I don't think Epley will approve that as this weeks post.. When I started reading the articles and the pretty innocent start of trolling where people just wanted to make fun of other people I thought about how Justin sometimes does that and how fun it could be to write something crazy in one of the cake forums, but then I came to the story about the 13-year old how killed herself after being rejected by her online flirt how showed up to be one of her old friends mum. There is several disturbing things about the story. What kind of a mother would do stuff like that?!? And NO it is not a valid reason that she just wanted to find out if the girl was gossiping about her daughter. But at the same time I can't help thinking that there must be something else wrong with her life since she felt that suicide was the only solution. On the other hand I remember being 13 with all the ups and downs, lots of breaking up and making up and every time I was sure that I just lost the love of my life and I couldn't live without him.. Fortunately I had good friends and a mum how told me that I would survive so maybe this girl could have been safe if adults around her had just been a bit more aware of what she was doing.
What I wanted to say with all this is that I think trolling is okay as long as noboby gets hurt...
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Wiki-Wiki Wah!
I love Wikipedia, I use it daily. As a matter of fact I used it just last night when I was studying for my Human Relations class, the vocabulary is pretty tough. This is the main reason why I utilize Wikipedia, to look up definitions of ridiculous words that I am expected to know. I love it, it's free, it’s easy, and anyone can use it. What I also like about Wikipedia is that anyone can contribute; you do not have to have a corner office with all your certificates of qualification hanging on the wall. Because anyone can post, it gives diversity. It’s the world's encyclopedia. Its user created and edited which I find to be an extremely important attraction to the cite. But what I disagree with is how people automatically imply it's not credible. There is room for unprofessionalism, but if so, like proven in class, any false information corrected with in a specific amount of time. (By the way, I did check the pentagon definition, and it no longer says that it has sixteen sides.) But teachers, especially those I interacted with in high school, strongly opposed to the idea of Wikipedia as a credible source for a research paper. But even though it could not be cited, that didn't mean that students such as myself, weren't scrolling through trying to find what the hell the teachers want us to learn about from the assigned topics, or what they were even talking about. (I get confused easily) Wikipedia is the first website I log into. Am I being informed of the whole truth about these topics? Um, well I feel that I am at least getting a good grasp and understanding. Authority seems to be opposed to the use of Wikipedia because they feel it’s not credible, why not do something about it then. If they have reason to believe that a topic on Wikipedia is misinforming people, then, they should edit the lies about it. Are the teacher’s views about the misinformation about Wikipedia due to hear say, or have they really come across students situations where a student was falsely informed of a specific topic? I’d like to know. I never argued why my teachers in high school wouldn’t let us use Wikipedia, I guess it was hegemony, I just didn't ask questions. Maybe I should call up my high school English teacher and ask her what her background and reasoning’s for being against Wikipedia stemmed from. “Should we block sites such like Wikipedia because students may be exposed to the misinformation, or should we encourage sites such as Wikipedia as on outlet for students to investigate and determine the truth of the information”? (http://ask.slashdot.org/article)
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
This is why your relationship status IS important! Watch out!
Don't click that button without thinking twice, or else it may be your last Facebook update...
http://www.lemondrop.com/2008/10/20/facebook-update-triggers-tragedy/?icid=100214839x1211903558x1200719448
http://www.lemondrop.com/2008/10/20/facebook-update-triggers-tragedy/?icid=100214839x1211903558x1200719448
In Wiki We Trust
What makes Wikipedia so attractive to its users? Is it merely the deep regard for reliable truth or immediate "truth?" As a frequent user, my Wiki searches typically stem from curiosity, which falls into the immediacy of what I want to know. Generally, I do not devote my understanding of life's topics or even my soul to user-created-scripture and regard it as reliable. In other words, it seems that user-created content which applies to information found in Wikipedia, Social Networks, blogs, has become our reality and plays a big part of the religious-like devotion people have adopted when needing quick answers. But, where is the conviction of need for discernment and wisdom of such information being presented through the monitor?
Such user-playgrounds such as Wikipedia, SNSs, and blogs eludes to the topic of Web 2.0, which is the extension of new applications and awareness of new trends in people's use of the internet. In the Britannica article, Web three-minus-one means "moving some of the thinking CLIENT SIDE so making it more immediate." But, who has that power to make it immediate? We the people! Colbert made an interesting statement that stuck out to me; he says, "Open source software is like free trade and the invisible hand of the market has the mouse now." He also argued that when money determines Wikipedia entries reality becomes commodity. Although we have not really reached the point of expensive reality, what is dangerous about free reality is that it is free. With the internet, which is full of low absolutes and an outlet for false declarations, reality becomes whatever anyone believes, and constitutes what is. But how do we draft power and truth into Web 2.0? Is it such that the elite has to require a fee for people to contribute to truth on any topic, which turns reality into commodity? Who has the privilege to have that power, people who just want a platform to create there own scripture or those with the experience that is relevant to topics and ideas?
To sum this whole argument of Web 2.0 and its content in the hands of user-creators, we need to be careful what we say, do, and accept in a world of false testimony and utter bull-shit. The internet can be a world of playtime and resource of lies. Be cautious of what you trust.
So what’s up with Wikipedia? Is it a great source of information on everything, or is it a horrible source of information about nothing valuable? Unfortunately, Wikipedia has gained a widespread label of ‘untrustworthy’, generally spread by those in authority positions. Why is that? The answer is impossible to know for certain but there are certain inferences we can make. Authority, especially authority being paid to provide information, is threatened by information being given away for free. If a new store opened and decided to start giving away all their merchandise (because the merchandise was given to them for free) Target would probably be a bit scared for their future. The same applies to academia. Although the information might not be quite as good sometimes, it has the huge benefit of being free and requiring the user to sit through no long and drawn out lectures. If you could get a nice, well-rounded, new car for $25,000 or a slightly used and dinged one that runs like a champion for free, which would you choose?
The only people who favor the status quo are those who benefit from the status quo. That is to say that those in power don’t want the power structure to change. Let’s flip the scene and pretend that the givers of information today (academia) are the government. They are the man. All of a sudden it doesn’t seem as wise to want all the information to come from them, huh? All of a sudden it seems wise that someone, even someone small, should provide a resource that can give out a second opinion and a different voice. Wikipedia provides that second voice even though academia is still screaming at the top of its lungs that it is the only way to (valid) knowledge.
Web 2.0… is the most convoluted mess I’ve ever heard of. Trying to understand it is more difficult than sorting through Miss USA Competition’s South Carolina answer. (Don’t know what I’m referring to? See this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww ) The term Web 2.0 is so used and abused that it doesn’t even know what it is anymore, much less should we attempt to understand it. Toss it out and come up with a term that means something already!
The only people who favor the status quo are those who benefit from the status quo. That is to say that those in power don’t want the power structure to change. Let’s flip the scene and pretend that the givers of information today (academia) are the government. They are the man. All of a sudden it doesn’t seem as wise to want all the information to come from them, huh? All of a sudden it seems wise that someone, even someone small, should provide a resource that can give out a second opinion and a different voice. Wikipedia provides that second voice even though academia is still screaming at the top of its lungs that it is the only way to (valid) knowledge.
Web 2.0… is the most convoluted mess I’ve ever heard of. Trying to understand it is more difficult than sorting through Miss USA Competition’s South Carolina answer. (Don’t know what I’m referring to? See this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww ) The term Web 2.0 is so used and abused that it doesn’t even know what it is anymore, much less should we attempt to understand it. Toss it out and come up with a term that means something already!
Monday, October 20, 2008
Whats cool about Wikipedia
Free info. Thats whats cool. I like the idea that someone really smart could get online, post what they know, and 2 seconds later I could read it and learn and be smart. I also like that perhaps I know a lot about a subject, like lube (yes lube I just did a presentation on lube) and I could post what I know and others could learn about it quickly and easily. Isn't that what the internet is? Learning from each other? Free sharing of ideas? Sure maybe it isn't 100% accurate all the time but if you know it isn't accurate do something about it. Click the button. People correcting each other and learning from each other to improve the worlds knowledge? Public sphere. I also like that it isn't the man. Information produced by the people for the people. Not produced by the government or the industry.
wikiweb2.0
Weather Wikipedia should be used as a scholarly source is debated especially among college professors. Regardless of your feelings on this, it should not and cannot just be discredited as a means of information. Are there errors in it? Yes. There are “scholarly” articles that have errors in them too. In any case, if you have something such as a research paper to do, you are going to have to do more than just look it up on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a great learning tool though. I use it to look up information all the time. I don’t have a set of encyclopedias and don’t know of anyone my age that does, however even if I did, I would not take the time to go look something up every time I have a question. An encyclopedia may and may not have the answer anyway, but it is just easier to do it on Wikipedia. Most of the time I am looking up something that is recent, or about maybe something in entertainment, sports, music, or something of that nature which would not be in an encyclopedia, and is not worth going to the library and spending a lot of time searching for. Also if I am reading an article and come across another term that I am not familiar with, I can just click on that link instead of looking it up too.
There is also the issue of if someone submits something to Wikipedia should they be held accountable for it. In a way I would say yes, but if it is over a controversial subject it could make someone who disagrees mad, and cause issues.
Web 2.0 is kind of confusing , considering that “ An exact definition of Web 2.0 continues to prove rather elusive, in part because the concept encompasses different goals and expectations for the future of the Internet and of electronic publishing in general. A leading critic of the Web 2.0 concept is Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, who points out that ‘Web 1.0 was all about connecting people. It was an interactive space, and I think Web 2.0 is of course a piece of jargon, nobody even knows what it means. If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along.’” What I gather is that web 2.0 is really not anything entirely different from web 1.0, its just that people have begun to explore some of the endless opportunities and things that can be done online.
in case you have 48 minutes to spare...
This video features a lot of the people we've been reading about and brings up a lot of issues and arguments about wikipedia and web 2.0 that is featured in the readings.
It's called "The Truth According to Wikipedia"
It's called "The Truth According to Wikipedia"
Wiki wiki wiki
I know that it's not an excuse, but I have been talking a lot about Wikipedia in my Human and Computer class so I'm a bit tired of the subject.. But I agree with some of the things that Ryleah mentioned like "It's the place to start your search when you want to find out about something new". But still I would never use it as a primary source for a paper. In the hum com class we had to contribute to Wiki either by creating a new page or by bringing something to an existing page. I choose to write something about the town that I was born in and actually corrected something on the page that was incorrect which I think is one of the good things about Wiki, but if nobody does that, then it doesn't matter. I think that until Wiki hire more people to check the things that people write there Wiki is still to unsafe to rely a 100 % on, but it's still a good place to find quick answars. Like the other day, when my roommate and I needed to know what first, second and third base included, we just looked it up on wiki.. And got a good description.. ;o)
Anyway I kind of like the idea behind Wiki, which means that everybody can contribute to a subject without having to be a journalist or an author although it means that trolls also find their way to it.. But as long as you check the informations you get on Wiki with other more relyable sources you don't have to worry about using it..
Anyway I kind of like the idea behind Wiki, which means that everybody can contribute to a subject without having to be a journalist or an author although it means that trolls also find their way to it.. But as long as you check the informations you get on Wiki with other more relyable sources you don't have to worry about using it..
Anonymity on Wikipedia
Considering the role of WikiScanner and the fact that one cannot write a Wikipedia article without being registered, it may seem that more accountability has come to the site. However, Wikipedia still maintains a degree of anonymity that I believe remains a cause for concern. Sure, one reason behind anonymity on Wikipedia is for the protection of its users in that they can post their view on a topic without being persecuted and/or endangered by their viewpoints. Another reason is the democratic ideal in that anyone can contribute no matter what background he or she may be coming from.
I can respect these views of Wikipedia, but at the same time I feel that authority and accountability are and still should be a part of academics. Although it is stressed time and time again that it should not be used as a primary source, it is fact that, "Wikipedia has grown rapidly into one of the largest reference Web sites, attracting at least 684 million visitors yearly by 2008."
Furthermore, the name 'Wikipedia' suggests that it is a type of encyclopedia, a word that possesses "a powerful connotation of reliability" (McHenry, 2005).
With this considered, I believe that Wikipedia should institute more authority and accountability within the site for the overall good of peoples' knowledge and perceptions of the world. Wikipedia itself claims that "users need not worry about accidentally damaging Wikipedia when adding or improving information, as other editors are always around to advise or correct obvious errors."
Is Wikipedia promoting carelessness in research and accuracy of an article? Shouldn't we be held accountable for the information that we are relaying? It is true that most inaccurate information on Wikipedia will be revised at one point, but what about the time between the original post and revision? Although a disclaimer may appear at the top of the page, how much do we treat that article different than an article with no disclaimer, if at all? There are so many Wikipedia pages that have disclaimers that I feel many become desensitized to them and don't really consider what they are saying.
As for the need for both accountability and authority on Wikipedia, consider the story of Essjay. This 24-year-old college dropout claimed some authority on topics pertaining to Catholicism as he deceived the community into thinking he had both doctorates in philosophy in theology and canon law. Although he claimed that his false identity was used to protect his true identity, it is clear that he used it as leverage to gain authority on topics such as 'the status of Mary in the Roman Catholic Church,' in which he was asked to give "expert testimony." Essjay was even revered as much to gain membership on the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee.
Especially in the Church that is known for its submission to authority figures who many feel have earned their dues and religious opinions(Pope, Cardinals, Doctors of the Church, Bishops, Priests, etc.), Essjay's words were probably taken very seriously by many who read his contributions. I feel people could be getting better information about the Catholic Church from one of real credentials that supports his or her background with proof than one who claims a false identity while stating that "[Catholicism for Dummies] is a text [he] often require for [his] students, and would hang [his] own Ph.D."
I believe that authority and accountability should be necessary on Wikipedia for the good of all because it is such a widely-used source. It will not only enhance the quality of one's knowledge, but I feel it will also help deter people from becoming careless in their research and writing.
I can respect these views of Wikipedia, but at the same time I feel that authority and accountability are and still should be a part of academics. Although it is stressed time and time again that it should not be used as a primary source, it is fact that, "Wikipedia has grown rapidly into one of the largest reference Web sites, attracting at least 684 million visitors yearly by 2008."
Furthermore, the name 'Wikipedia' suggests that it is a type of encyclopedia, a word that possesses "a powerful connotation of reliability" (McHenry, 2005).
With this considered, I believe that Wikipedia should institute more authority and accountability within the site for the overall good of peoples' knowledge and perceptions of the world. Wikipedia itself claims that "users need not worry about accidentally damaging Wikipedia when adding or improving information, as other editors are always around to advise or correct obvious errors."
Is Wikipedia promoting carelessness in research and accuracy of an article? Shouldn't we be held accountable for the information that we are relaying? It is true that most inaccurate information on Wikipedia will be revised at one point, but what about the time between the original post and revision? Although a disclaimer may appear at the top of the page, how much do we treat that article different than an article with no disclaimer, if at all? There are so many Wikipedia pages that have disclaimers that I feel many become desensitized to them and don't really consider what they are saying.
As for the need for both accountability and authority on Wikipedia, consider the story of Essjay. This 24-year-old college dropout claimed some authority on topics pertaining to Catholicism as he deceived the community into thinking he had both doctorates in philosophy in theology and canon law. Although he claimed that his false identity was used to protect his true identity, it is clear that he used it as leverage to gain authority on topics such as 'the status of Mary in the Roman Catholic Church,' in which he was asked to give "expert testimony." Essjay was even revered as much to gain membership on the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee.
Especially in the Church that is known for its submission to authority figures who many feel have earned their dues and religious opinions(Pope, Cardinals, Doctors of the Church, Bishops, Priests, etc.), Essjay's words were probably taken very seriously by many who read his contributions. I feel people could be getting better information about the Catholic Church from one of real credentials that supports his or her background with proof than one who claims a false identity while stating that "[Catholicism for Dummies] is a text [he] often require for [his] students, and would hang [his] own Ph.D."
I believe that authority and accountability should be necessary on Wikipedia for the good of all because it is such a widely-used source. It will not only enhance the quality of one's knowledge, but I feel it will also help deter people from becoming careless in their research and writing.
Wikipedia and Web 2.0
It is hard for me to understand why wikipedia is such a horrible site and that academics are so against it. Wikipedia is very useful to get a general idea of what a topic is. The reading says that you shouldn't use Wikipedia as a primary source for serious research. I thought everyone knew that though. Wikipedia can't be used for every fact you want to find at simply because anyone can go in and change the facts if they want to. The thing about that is, and Epley said this in class, that how come academics that see something wrong on Wikipedia don't fix it? It isn't hard to do just click edit and correct it. But the fact that they don't fix something and then say that Wikipedia is not a good source because everything on it isn't correct isn't helping anything. Another thing about Wikipedia that makes me think it is fairly reasonable is because every time you google search something Wikipedia is in the top five of your search. I think that Wikipedia will definitely be used more in the younger generations. This is because with so many people using the internet at some point professors are going to stop saying have five book sources and instead have five internet sources that you can track and make sure they are factual. On Wikipedia you can find out where the information that is posted comes from. If you really had to find out you would just have to go to the bottom of the page and follow the links to the real source. I see nothing wrong with Wikipedia and using it to find out more information about certain things. I think that professors banning it as a source really doesn't matter because students are going to use it anyway. Why? Because it is convenient and easy to use.
Danah Boyd and Wiki...
I know that the use of Wiki is a big issue in Academia, but do professors really talk about it? I think in my graduate coursework it has only been brought up a time or two and at Coe it was never really talked about--you just knew not to do it.
I keep finding myself reitterating it to my Oral Comm. class and wonder if it is mainly entry level courses that it is more of an issue--do your professors always mention it when assigning a paper? Or is it just supposed to be understood?
http://many.corante.com/archives/2005/01/04/academia_and_wikipedia.php
January 4, 2005
Academia and Wikipedia
Posted by danah boyd
[In direct response to various points in Clay’s K5 Article on Wikipedia Anti-elitism which responds to Larry Sanger’s Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism]
First, let me acknowledge that i have excessive privilege in this lifetime. That said, i’m not convinced that academia operates solely on an aggressive exertion of privilege nor am i convinced that any institution in the United States can be discussed without an assertion of privilege. But that’s another story.
I would argue that many librarians, teachers and academics fear Wikipedia (not dislike it) because it is not properly understood, not simply because it challenges their privilege, just as most new systems and media are feared by traditionalists of all sorts. Have we not had enough conversations about blog fear amongst journalists?
As a contributor to and user of Wikipedia, there is no doubt that i have a deep appreciation for it. All the same, i roll my eyes whenever students submit papers with Wikipedia as a citation. This is probably a source of much Wikipedia dislike amongst academics.
Wikipedia appears to be a legitimate authority on a vast array of topics for which only one individual has contributed material. This is not the utopian collection of mass intelligence that Clay values. For many non-controversial topics, there are only a limited authors and we have no idea what their level of expertise is. Hell, i submitted a bazillion anthropology entries while taking Anthro 1 based on my textbook and most of them remain untouched. My early attempts to distill anthropology should definitely not appear as legitimate authorities on the topics, yet many students take them as such.
On topics for which i feel as though i do have some authority, i’m often embarrassed by what appears at Wikipedia. Take the entry for social network: “A social network is when people help and protect each other in a close community. It is never larger than about 150 people.” You have got to be kidding me. Aside from being a patently wrong and naive misinterpretation of research, this definition reveals what happens when pop cultural understandings of concepts become authorities.
I have extreme respect for those who seek to define concepts such as those who craft the dictionary and encyclopedias. It is extremely challenging to define a term because you are trying very hard to capture and convey excessive amounts of information in an abbreviated fashion that cannot be misinterpreted. This takes talent, practice, precision and a great deal of research. Consider, for example, the difference between a good science writer and a bad one. Not everyone can convey large bodies of research in an easily accessible manner.
This does not mean that i dislike Wikipedia, just that i do not consider it to be equivalent to an encyclopedia. I believe that it lacks the necessary research and precision. The lack of talent and practice mostly comes from the fact that most entries have limited contributers. Wikipedia is often my first source, but never my last, particularly in contexts where i need to be certain of my facts. Wikipedia is exceptionally valuable to read about multiple sides to a story, particularly in historical contexts, but i don’t trust alternative histories any more than i trust privileged ones.
My concern - and that of many of my colleagues - is that students are often not media-savvy enough to recognize when to trust Wikipedia and when this is a dreadful idea. They quote from it as though it cannot be inaccurate. I certainly distrust many classic sources, but i don’t think that an “anti-elitist” (a.k.a. lacking traditional authority and expertise) alternative is automatically better. Such a move stinks of glorifying otherness simply out of disdain for hegemonic practices, a tactic that never gets us anywhere.
I don’t believe that the goal should be ‘acceptance’ so much as recognition of what Wikipedia is and what it is not. It will never be an encyclopedia, but it will contain extensive knowledge that is quite valuable for different purposes. If the fuss dies down, i’d be exceptionally worried because it would mean that we’ve lost the ability to discuss the quality of information.
Alternatively, i too would love to see a vetted version of Wikipedia, one that would provide a knowledge resource that is more accountable and authoritative.
I keep finding myself reitterating it to my Oral Comm. class and wonder if it is mainly entry level courses that it is more of an issue--do your professors always mention it when assigning a paper? Or is it just supposed to be understood?
http://many.corante.com/archives/2005/01/04/academia_and_wikipedia.php
January 4, 2005
Academia and Wikipedia
Posted by danah boyd
[In direct response to various points in Clay’s K5 Article on Wikipedia Anti-elitism which responds to Larry Sanger’s Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism]
First, let me acknowledge that i have excessive privilege in this lifetime. That said, i’m not convinced that academia operates solely on an aggressive exertion of privilege nor am i convinced that any institution in the United States can be discussed without an assertion of privilege. But that’s another story.
I would argue that many librarians, teachers and academics fear Wikipedia (not dislike it) because it is not properly understood, not simply because it challenges their privilege, just as most new systems and media are feared by traditionalists of all sorts. Have we not had enough conversations about blog fear amongst journalists?
As a contributor to and user of Wikipedia, there is no doubt that i have a deep appreciation for it. All the same, i roll my eyes whenever students submit papers with Wikipedia as a citation. This is probably a source of much Wikipedia dislike amongst academics.
Wikipedia appears to be a legitimate authority on a vast array of topics for which only one individual has contributed material. This is not the utopian collection of mass intelligence that Clay values. For many non-controversial topics, there are only a limited authors and we have no idea what their level of expertise is. Hell, i submitted a bazillion anthropology entries while taking Anthro 1 based on my textbook and most of them remain untouched. My early attempts to distill anthropology should definitely not appear as legitimate authorities on the topics, yet many students take them as such.
On topics for which i feel as though i do have some authority, i’m often embarrassed by what appears at Wikipedia. Take the entry for social network: “A social network is when people help and protect each other in a close community. It is never larger than about 150 people.” You have got to be kidding me. Aside from being a patently wrong and naive misinterpretation of research, this definition reveals what happens when pop cultural understandings of concepts become authorities.
I have extreme respect for those who seek to define concepts such as those who craft the dictionary and encyclopedias. It is extremely challenging to define a term because you are trying very hard to capture and convey excessive amounts of information in an abbreviated fashion that cannot be misinterpreted. This takes talent, practice, precision and a great deal of research. Consider, for example, the difference between a good science writer and a bad one. Not everyone can convey large bodies of research in an easily accessible manner.
This does not mean that i dislike Wikipedia, just that i do not consider it to be equivalent to an encyclopedia. I believe that it lacks the necessary research and precision. The lack of talent and practice mostly comes from the fact that most entries have limited contributers. Wikipedia is often my first source, but never my last, particularly in contexts where i need to be certain of my facts. Wikipedia is exceptionally valuable to read about multiple sides to a story, particularly in historical contexts, but i don’t trust alternative histories any more than i trust privileged ones.
My concern - and that of many of my colleagues - is that students are often not media-savvy enough to recognize when to trust Wikipedia and when this is a dreadful idea. They quote from it as though it cannot be inaccurate. I certainly distrust many classic sources, but i don’t think that an “anti-elitist” (a.k.a. lacking traditional authority and expertise) alternative is automatically better. Such a move stinks of glorifying otherness simply out of disdain for hegemonic practices, a tactic that never gets us anywhere.
I don’t believe that the goal should be ‘acceptance’ so much as recognition of what Wikipedia is and what it is not. It will never be an encyclopedia, but it will contain extensive knowledge that is quite valuable for different purposes. If the fuss dies down, i’d be exceptionally worried because it would mean that we’ve lost the ability to discuss the quality of information.
Alternatively, i too would love to see a vetted version of Wikipedia, one that would provide a knowledge resource that is more accountable and authoritative.
"Wik-it" is becoming as popular as "Google-it."
...at least that's the word on the street...the street in the virtual world that is. And, the buzz around sources for Oral Comm. right here at UNI.
We had a discussion about this in our TA meeting for Oral Communication--and the consensus was that absolutley no Wikipedia. I have said it over and over, yet what do many of my students use--Wiki! It has become so engrained in their "routine" of research that they practically can't look anything up without using it.
I would like to pose the argument that the responsibility of discernment falls with the viewer of the information. In my class discussions of late, we have been dialoguing about the critical lens we need to use with the media. And, I propose that we do the same with Wiki. With our news once we check a few places and they are all in agreement, we tend to believe something as truth. Thus, I see Wiki as a good starting point in the same way. Wiki is a place to get a new thought or idea in your head and then go search it out...to see if other sources match up--what a good researcher would do anyway!
Andrew Keen on the Britannica.com site says,"As Gorman explains, the intellectual life of our society is at stake. This is a critically serious debate that will determine the credibility and the very viability of our information economy. If we want our kids to be ignorant, then accept the fashionable inanities of Web 2.0. If not, join the cause. And fight against the flattening of our culture into a wasteland of collectivist nonsense."
I wholeheartedly agree with him and that is why we need to focus on the discernment and critical lens. At Coe, I took a media course and we discussed the need of an actual course teaching young people to do this. Sad or not they don't know how to "critically un-mask" what the news media and Web 2.0 sites are feeding them. They live on these sites. They probably interact more with them than their teachers or parents, yet I bet most parents would see a course of that nature as being a waste of time. But what's going to be a waste is the brain rot and ignorance that is going to emerge if the young people become the future leaders and have grown up accepting these outlets as truth. But, hey, we're all about CHANGE right now so maybe one can hope:)
The last paragraph of this article sums it up well...let's be critical thinkers people!
The Wikipedia problem
KEN HUNT
Oct. 16, 2007 10:11 AM EDT
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales last year told a Pennsylvania audience he gets about 10 e-mails a week from students who end up in trouble because they cited the online encyclopedia in a paper and the information turned out to be wrong. He doesn't have much sympathy for their plight, though. "For God sake," he said, "you're in college; don't cite the encyclopedia."
There is no doubting the influence of Mr. Wales's online collaborative encyclopedia. It now ranks in the top 10 websites on the Internet in terms of traffic and just about any Google search will turn up a Wikipedia article as one of the first few hits.
Started in 2001, the online encyclopedia now logs more than two million articles, with approximately 60,000 new articles being added each month.
Some of the articles are excellent. Others are very poor. The difficult part, many say, is telling the difference. The beauty of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. The problem is that anyone does. Yet, despite the warnings that come from Mr. Wales and a number of others about citing Wikipedia as a source, many professors find students relying on the site more and more. Dr. Daniel O'Donnell, an associate professor and chair of the Department of English at the University of Lethbridge, says that it is rare these days to see an undergraduate paper that doesn't rely on Wikipedia.
This is not surprising. After all, throughout the culture, Wikipedia has become as common a source to cite as any traditional media source.
"I've used Wikipedia a ton of times," says Walter Zimmerman, electronic services librarian at the University of Western Ontario. "You just have to realize what it is and how it works." Mr. Zimmerman has been helping students with research for more than 30 years, but these days he finds that one of the basic roles he performs is to teach students some basic information literacy. "You should consider Wikipedia as a survey of the collective wisdom on a topic," he says.
"Wikipedia can be a great starting point," Mr. Zimmerman points out, "because it covers topics that don't traditionally get room in an encyclopedia.
"The most important thing to consider, though, is the potential bias in a Wikipedia article and where it might come from. That's something that we teach students: to consider the biases inherent in any source, not just Wikipedia. All media need to be viewed through a critical lens."
We had a discussion about this in our TA meeting for Oral Communication--and the consensus was that absolutley no Wikipedia. I have said it over and over, yet what do many of my students use--Wiki! It has become so engrained in their "routine" of research that they practically can't look anything up without using it.
I would like to pose the argument that the responsibility of discernment falls with the viewer of the information. In my class discussions of late, we have been dialoguing about the critical lens we need to use with the media. And, I propose that we do the same with Wiki. With our news once we check a few places and they are all in agreement, we tend to believe something as truth. Thus, I see Wiki as a good starting point in the same way. Wiki is a place to get a new thought or idea in your head and then go search it out...to see if other sources match up--what a good researcher would do anyway!
Andrew Keen on the Britannica.com site says,"As Gorman explains, the intellectual life of our society is at stake. This is a critically serious debate that will determine the credibility and the very viability of our information economy. If we want our kids to be ignorant, then accept the fashionable inanities of Web 2.0. If not, join the cause. And fight against the flattening of our culture into a wasteland of collectivist nonsense."
I wholeheartedly agree with him and that is why we need to focus on the discernment and critical lens. At Coe, I took a media course and we discussed the need of an actual course teaching young people to do this. Sad or not they don't know how to "critically un-mask" what the news media and Web 2.0 sites are feeding them. They live on these sites. They probably interact more with them than their teachers or parents, yet I bet most parents would see a course of that nature as being a waste of time. But what's going to be a waste is the brain rot and ignorance that is going to emerge if the young people become the future leaders and have grown up accepting these outlets as truth. But, hey, we're all about CHANGE right now so maybe one can hope:)
The last paragraph of this article sums it up well...let's be critical thinkers people!
The Wikipedia problem
KEN HUNT
Oct. 16, 2007 10:11 AM EDT
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales last year told a Pennsylvania audience he gets about 10 e-mails a week from students who end up in trouble because they cited the online encyclopedia in a paper and the information turned out to be wrong. He doesn't have much sympathy for their plight, though. "For God sake," he said, "you're in college; don't cite the encyclopedia."
There is no doubting the influence of Mr. Wales's online collaborative encyclopedia. It now ranks in the top 10 websites on the Internet in terms of traffic and just about any Google search will turn up a Wikipedia article as one of the first few hits.
Started in 2001, the online encyclopedia now logs more than two million articles, with approximately 60,000 new articles being added each month.
Some of the articles are excellent. Others are very poor. The difficult part, many say, is telling the difference. The beauty of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. The problem is that anyone does. Yet, despite the warnings that come from Mr. Wales and a number of others about citing Wikipedia as a source, many professors find students relying on the site more and more. Dr. Daniel O'Donnell, an associate professor and chair of the Department of English at the University of Lethbridge, says that it is rare these days to see an undergraduate paper that doesn't rely on Wikipedia.
This is not surprising. After all, throughout the culture, Wikipedia has become as common a source to cite as any traditional media source.
"I've used Wikipedia a ton of times," says Walter Zimmerman, electronic services librarian at the University of Western Ontario. "You just have to realize what it is and how it works." Mr. Zimmerman has been helping students with research for more than 30 years, but these days he finds that one of the basic roles he performs is to teach students some basic information literacy. "You should consider Wikipedia as a survey of the collective wisdom on a topic," he says.
"Wikipedia can be a great starting point," Mr. Zimmerman points out, "because it covers topics that don't traditionally get room in an encyclopedia.
"The most important thing to consider, though, is the potential bias in a Wikipedia article and where it might come from. That's something that we teach students: to consider the biases inherent in any source, not just Wikipedia. All media need to be viewed through a critical lens."
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Wikipedia/Web 2.0
Wikipedia is a source that I’m sure just about every college student has used at one time or another, regardless of whether or not a professor has told him or her to stay away from the controversial site. People argue that Wikipedia is an unreliable source because anyone can edit it, and that you’ll end up with false information. I’ve always thought that for the most part, it would be pretty difficult to actually get completely false information from the site because the bad information is usually pretty easy to pick out of whatever article it is that you are reading, and after reading about the effort that goes into policing Wikipedia articles, I feel that this is even more true. While reading one of the articles from the syllabus, I was browsing from page to page that were linked together, and I ended up at a page listing the obituaries from Wikipedians, and some of those people were experts in their respective fields who spend quite a bit of time making sure that the correct information was on Wikipedia.
Also, I think that as time goes on, more and more people will continue to look to Wikipedia, as well as Web 2.0 related sites, for getting any information they might need, especially when it comes to younger students, because I’m sure that Wikipedia and various Web 2.0 projects are almost all that they know. Sure, they may have teachers that require them to gather information from many different sources, but Wikipedia is going to continually be the first place that they go to for their research needs.
When it comes to Web 2.0, I think that things are only going to continue to grow, especially considering that it is being used as a way to gain attention from younger people everywhere. As the article about Web 2.0 on Wikipedia stated, even universities are beginning to take advantage of Web 2.0 related sites to get students to their own websites and maybe to their schools. I could eventually see different businesses taking advantage of Web 2.0 in order to get the attention of young people in much the same way.
Also, I think that as time goes on, more and more people will continue to look to Wikipedia, as well as Web 2.0 related sites, for getting any information they might need, especially when it comes to younger students, because I’m sure that Wikipedia and various Web 2.0 projects are almost all that they know. Sure, they may have teachers that require them to gather information from many different sources, but Wikipedia is going to continually be the first place that they go to for their research needs.
When it comes to Web 2.0, I think that things are only going to continue to grow, especially considering that it is being used as a way to gain attention from younger people everywhere. As the article about Web 2.0 on Wikipedia stated, even universities are beginning to take advantage of Web 2.0 related sites to get students to their own websites and maybe to their schools. I could eventually see different businesses taking advantage of Web 2.0 in order to get the attention of young people in much the same way.
Wiki Wiki Web 2.0
It seems like Web 2.0 and wikis are becoming academics worst nightmare. Not only do they have to compete with easy access to information through Wikipedia, but they have to adapt once again to new forms of interaction online. To be honest, I find Wikipedia to be useful in looking up information quick and to get the general idea. If I am thoroughly researching something for a paper, documentary, or other academic purpose... I am going to look for a greater range of sources. I think the things people are able to assemble on Wikipedia such as the Star Wars wiki, is incredibly impressive given the amount of effort and time that has been put into them. Sure, these articles might not have relevance to furthering your academic knowledge, but they are interesting to read. This is something I find is usually the case with so-called Web 2.0 sites like Wikipedia, Youtube, blogs and Facebook, which is that they are more about entertainment than gaining fundamental knowledge. It is a way to spend your time online that I think the critics think is wasteful when they could be looking through some official federal release material or scholarly articles on subjects.
I think Web 2.0 and Wikipedia would be accepted by some media critics like who feel that people are using Youtube and Wikipedia to create new media or put something out there on the internet that hasn't been done before. I honestly don't think that as time goes on that people will only rely on the internet, in particular Wikipedia and Web 2.0 sites to gather their information. These sites will be more of an outlet from "hard news and information" sites to look at in terms of entertainment.
I think Web 2.0 and Wikipedia would be accepted by some media critics like who feel that people are using Youtube and Wikipedia to create new media or put something out there on the internet that hasn't been done before. I honestly don't think that as time goes on that people will only rely on the internet, in particular Wikipedia and Web 2.0 sites to gather their information. These sites will be more of an outlet from "hard news and information" sites to look at in terms of entertainment.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Wikipedia Wars...
First of all no college student owns an Encyclopedia collection of books and if you do then you probably are in Second Life and doing that whole thing, either way Wikipedia is amazing bases off the concepts that it’s free, easy to use, and has “almost” everything in it; AND IT’S A .ORG WEBSITE…THAT’S GOTTA MEAN IT’S LEGET!
Reading about what Wikipedia is not made me laugh/think at the same time because you know there has to be someone out there doing a paper and using Wikipedia as a reference and you know there’s some court case happening as an effect to it so Wikipedia has to place what it is not on its website (but should I believe what they say on this…it is Wikipedia). It states, “Wikipedia acknowledges that it should not be used as a primary source for serious research,” key word here is primary source. Use the website to broaden your knowledge of a subject or to get some outside input on an event, but don’t souly base your research on Wikipedia.
The criticism page on Wikipedia showed quite the wrap sheet and I love how you could edit this page. One thing I find interesting about Wikipedia is that at the bottom there are links to the references people used to conclude what they posted, so if one really wanted to get the “truth” on a matter they could extensively go track it down.
Wikipedia is in hundreds of different languages and practically every Google search you do the first link is from Wikipedia…plus Word’s spell check acknowledges that it’s a word! The site is going nowhere for a long time and I’m going to continue looking at what people think about lets say Postmodernism…because in all honesty it’s one of those things NOT ONE PERSON CAN GROW THE BALLS OR OVERIES (throwing that in there so my sexiest portrayal of me in class can be gone) AND DEFINE IT.
I loved the Star Wars Dates page Epley…I now know that in 50,000 BBY The Yevethan species gain sentience on the planet N'Zoth. No one touches Luke’s mom…
don’t tell me you Youtube name is KingKizerKun Epley…
Reading about what Wikipedia is not made me laugh/think at the same time because you know there has to be someone out there doing a paper and using Wikipedia as a reference and you know there’s some court case happening as an effect to it so Wikipedia has to place what it is not on its website (but should I believe what they say on this…it is Wikipedia). It states, “Wikipedia acknowledges that it should not be used as a primary source for serious research,” key word here is primary source. Use the website to broaden your knowledge of a subject or to get some outside input on an event, but don’t souly base your research on Wikipedia.
The criticism page on Wikipedia showed quite the wrap sheet and I love how you could edit this page. One thing I find interesting about Wikipedia is that at the bottom there are links to the references people used to conclude what they posted, so if one really wanted to get the “truth” on a matter they could extensively go track it down.
Wikipedia is in hundreds of different languages and practically every Google search you do the first link is from Wikipedia…plus Word’s spell check acknowledges that it’s a word! The site is going nowhere for a long time and I’m going to continue looking at what people think about lets say Postmodernism…because in all honesty it’s one of those things NOT ONE PERSON CAN GROW THE BALLS OR OVERIES (throwing that in there so my sexiest portrayal of me in class can be gone) AND DEFINE IT.
I loved the Star Wars Dates page Epley…I now know that in 50,000 BBY The Yevethan species gain sentience on the planet N'Zoth. No one touches Luke’s mom…
don’t tell me you Youtube name is KingKizerKun Epley…
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
I couldn't resist after our cake discussion in class!
This was staring at me as I went to check my msn...Epley...it says cream cheese frosting for Red Velvet...just FYI:)
http://www.delish.com/recipes/cooking-recipes/birthday-cupcake-kids-recipes?GT1=32003
http://www.delish.com/recipes/cooking-recipes/birthday-cupcake-kids-recipes?GT1=32003
Wikiality
Out of all of the "new" tools at our disposal thanks to Web 2.0, I think Wikipedia is by far the most useful, legitimate, and socially significant. Youtube is great for entertainment, self-promotion, or a good laugh. Blogs are great for sharing opinions and thoughts with others. Facebook is great for some reason or another, I suppose, but Wikipedia is a site that I believe will be around long before the all the others fizzle out, if they do. Reading the articles about what Wikipedia is and is not shed a very interesting light on the online encyclopedia. Upon reading these articles, it dawned on me that Wikipedia is the cherry on top of the shit-sundae that is Web 2.0. The people who run the site do so in a professional and almost anal manner, and to me it seems as though they truly care about the content of their site, unlike myspace, facebook, and others. The fact that they are a non-profit company reiterates the idea that they are running this site because they care about it, not to sit back and count giant stacks of money made off stupid ads that no one looks at anyway. When I first started using Wikipedia, I used it for reasons similar to when I first used myspace. When I encountered a new band I wanted to find out more about, I would listen to their free content on myspace, and look up their bio on Wikipedia. While thats where my relationship with myspace ends, I have continued to use Wikipedia for other inquiries. For example, last year I was taking a sociology class, and in lieu of wading through the textbook for hours to find definitions of terms and theories for the midterm, I Wikipedia'ed each one, and got a very good grade on the exam. I'm not saying Wikipedia should replace textbooks (Wikipedia says this themselves), I do think Wikipedia is a good source for finding widely known information. I truly think everyone would be better off if they spent the amount of time they do creeping around on facebook looking up information on Wikipedia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
