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!
| 90 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
However, I use it several times a day... it's a great idea to get quickly informed about a topic.
Comment by The black man
Keep the information flowing... in the end it is up to us what we want to learn
Comment by Jonathon
Anthroblogogy
as you can guess, i also use it several times a day. but as you suggest, it probably isn't a good idea to use this as an academic source - for some topics.
i wouldn't use wiki as my information source if i was studying medicine, however i am studying communication. to be honest, this is one of the better sources out there for information for me. since most of the topics and issues that i need information on are culture specific, i can't usually find that many up to date (cutting edge say) academic references - all the time. so in that case, using wiki is one of my aces up my sleeve.
interesting point you raise from that article about young children and wikipedia. maybe there should be some guidelines in place to assist directing those with spongey brains. possibly attached to the google search results that do bypass the main page.
Comment by Jonathon
Anthroblogogy
you took your conspiracy tablets this month didn't you? not all information that we consume is going to be a bad thing!
but i do understand what yo are saying and you are right in your comments on perception of this information. i think it all comes back to how we approach information and what prior learnings we bring with us to this new information.
thanks for yo comment.
Comment by Lilla
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
I have always loved wiki as a starting point for research, because of the linked information. To this end it serves me as an "ideas" pit stop, when fact checking investigative articles.
Anyone researching anything will know that you need more than one source anyway. As an academically trained journalist I know the value and importance of double checking sources. As far as that goes, I have found Wiki has checked out on most counts when facts were double checked... only one occassion I think it varied slightly and that variance itself, was 'academic.'
They do get the name of people right and from an esoteric perspective of mysticism and phenomonology itself? Invaluable. To me, the different perspectives give rise to a phenomenon of its own, does it not?
An interesting, thought provoking post.
Lilla ...
Comment by Jonathon
Anthroblogogy
esoteric eh? that is something that i had not even contemplated.... although it is there for everyone, i do agree that it is only a certain type of person that would access this information, therefore leaving a large chunk of people out of the loop.
this phenomenon of conflict of interest is indeed something of interest. i feel people just cannot accept that other people have knowledge also. but if it doesn't come from a 'credible' source, it can't be correct. as you say
so why does this un-nerving attitude exhist? why are certain creative communities accepted and others aren't? (eg. youtube vs. wikipedia)
thanks lilla, an interesting and thought provoking comment.