milo goes to 'wikipedia' college. what do you think?
April 2nd 2007 15:05
the never ending debate is always raging as to the quality of the information that is available on wikipedia. the onlline information encyclopedia that is for wikipedians, written by wikipedians. it is hard for me to take an un-biased opinion of this as i am a firm believer that wiki is all good, however i will attempt to be diplomatic in this discussion of the world's coolest information resource.
wiki is good because:
>it allows open input into the content which allows diversity of this content,
>the content is forever evolving - as the more people research and discover, the more that is added to this database,
>the content is allowed to be edited by whoever, ensuring that there is a natural police system to control any misinformation,
>the history of the edits are accessible to all so it can be seen how the information has been contributed,
>it has a never ending hypertextual, rhizomic form to it that encourages the reader to access multiple sources for any information,
>it is working on all media formats,
>
oesn't pretend to be something that it is not.
these are some substantial reasons as to why i believe it is a credible source of information, and why i continue to use it as such. so it makes me wonder why there is such a scared attitude out there to this information? this opinion is one that is expressed by the same person that would pick up the newspaper in the morning and believe that it is a coincidence that david hicks' trial has been shifted to after the next australian election. wouldn't it be fair to say 'exercise caution' when consuming any form of information? i think wikipedians are more likely to adhere to their own set of conduct when moving about the pages and pro/consuming information.
this is why i feel angry when i hear about schools such as middlebury college in the uk having banned the use of citing wikipedia as academic sources. i thought universities were supposed to be a place where intelligent people lurked? somewhere that was designed to expand one's mind into other thinking dimensions and not implode it on itself? why then would they do this?
if you read this article from a research project into the affects of digital media on youths, it places wikipedia into a more suitable context to be used. i can't help but think of that telstra add. the one where the little boy asks his dad about the great wall of china. "to keep the rabbits out" is his worldly and wisely retort. if we only have one source for anything, don''t we become completely one minded?
in this sense, i also believe that it is impossible to rely solely on wikipedia for your information, but it is something that can be used as a starting point or for reference. apart from that it is useful to gain knowledge on things that be more of a 'folksonomy' rather than something that is in the oxford. what does oxford say about 'crackheads'? well, this is what wiki said about it....
what does other people think about wikipedia and using it as a source?
wiki is good because:
>it allows open input into the content which allows diversity of this content,
>the content is forever evolving - as the more people research and discover, the more that is added to this database,
>the history of the edits are accessible to all so it can be seen how the information has been contributed,
>it has a never ending hypertextual, rhizomic form to it that encourages the reader to access multiple sources for any information,
>it is working on all media formats,
>
oesn't pretend to be something that it is not. these are some substantial reasons as to why i believe it is a credible source of information, and why i continue to use it as such. so it makes me wonder why there is such a scared attitude out there to this information? this opinion is one that is expressed by the same person that would pick up the newspaper in the morning and believe that it is a coincidence that david hicks' trial has been shifted to after the next australian election. wouldn't it be fair to say 'exercise caution' when consuming any form of information? i think wikipedians are more likely to adhere to their own set of conduct when moving about the pages and pro/consuming information.
this is why i feel angry when i hear about schools such as middlebury college in the uk having banned the use of citing wikipedia as academic sources. i thought universities were supposed to be a place where intelligent people lurked? somewhere that was designed to expand one's mind into other thinking dimensions and not implode it on itself? why then would they do this?
if you read this article from a research project into the affects of digital media on youths, it places wikipedia into a more suitable context to be used. i can't help but think of that telstra add. the one where the little boy asks his dad about the great wall of china. "to keep the rabbits out" is his worldly and wisely retort. if we only have one source for anything, don''t we become completely one minded?
in this sense, i also believe that it is impossible to rely solely on wikipedia for your information, but it is something that can be used as a starting point or for reference. apart from that it is useful to gain knowledge on things that be more of a 'folksonomy' rather than something that is in the oxford. what does oxford say about 'crackheads'? well, this is what wiki said about it....
what does other people think about wikipedia and using it as a source?
too many rabbits!
| 70 |
| Vote |
Comments (6)
Add Comments
