In the essay "Know It All," by Stacy Schiff, the hot topic is Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a collaborative, online encyclopedia of sorts. It's an ever-expansive community where people of all ages, backgrounds, education and interests can come together and interact.
It seems as though, over the past several years, the words Wikipedia and Do Not Use go hand and hand. Since I was in high school, all of my teachers have been preaching against Wiki and how it is a useless pile of information that "just anyone" can add to or take away from. I have long understood the concept of Wiki and take it for what it is. It is a collection of information. Information anyone could probably find throughout the vastness that is the internet. At least with Wiki, it's all organized onto a page with a title.
While reading this article, I felt the historical perspective was an interesting spin on Wiki and the encyclopedia. It is interesting to see how Wiki and Britannica aren't too far off from one another when it comes to errors. (Even if they did refute it.) Also, to see how the Encyclopedie was a book that was able to "muscle aside religious institutions and orthodoxies to install human reason at the center of the universe" (4). When you think about it, that is exactly what Wiki is doing in modern times. It is shifting aside the traditions and normalcy of information distribution in society and creating a new, radical idea: information for the masses by the masses.
Out of all of the information in this article, I am most impressed with the vast reach of Wikipedia. I find it astonishing that one single source is able to transverse more than two hundred languages and reach over hundreds of thousands of contributors and even more viewers. Now to me, something that huge is certainly going to catch a lot of flack, but I feel that credit is due to it also. This project, started by Jimmy Wales, is a thing that is greater than just a pile of useless information. I feel that it's massive potential far outweighs the negatives it incurs. I feel that if used correctly, it has the potential to be a wonderful source that already reaches a lot of people.
Good morning!
ReplyDeleteI also found that the information in the article about Wikipedia and Britannica to be very interesting. I was surprised at how closely they are alike and as you said, the number of errors in both were almost the same. I feel that Wikipedia is the Britannica for the 21st century: it's online and easy to access and includes all sorts of obscure and strange topics often not covered in other encyclopedias: two characteristics ideal the majority of internet users today.
I loved that you pointed out the fact that Wikipedia is "information for the masses by the masses." I think that you are exactly right, and although teachers may not accept this website as a reliable source it does come in handy. I know that I have had many questions answers because of Wikipedia. I also agree with you that the postives greatly outweigh the negatives!
ReplyDeleteElizabeth,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your post because of your focus: Wikipedia is a collaborative, intellectual community of people. It truly is! It's not only a place for people to look up information, but it's a place for people to display their information. But, like I said in my post, perhaps I'm just partial to it because of my one sentence that I wrote for it :)
But I also liked in class when we kept talking about people like being "published," and Wikipedia is a perfect place for that because its free and easy. I never thought of it that way because, like you, I've always seen it as a collaborative effort among many different people.
I guess I kept over looking the connection between Britannica and Wikipedia. All I saw there was an unwanted step-sibling rivalry. Yes they both have errors and one is older and they both have their different goals... kinda, but Wiki seems to be the younger pesky sibling who is always fighting for attention. I agree with Chelsea in her comment. Wikipedia is the 21st Britannica, whether Britannica wants to see it or not. They are rivals and at this point there is no way to tell who will be the victor.
ReplyDelete