Blog Entry #3

After looking at my two partners' blog entries, I think creating a page on Roger Fidler or adding to 'The World Brain' are great ideas.  There is a great deal of information we could take from our class textbook, particularly from Fidler's article on technomyopia.  We could give a brief history of Fidler- his education, career, etc.- and then have a section on technopyopia.  I think using the example of video games that we talked about in class would be useful; it illustrates how they did not take off initially as expected, however, decades later they have changed the very way we use televisions.  After doing some research on Google, I also learned that Fidler is interested in 'mediamorphosis,' which could possibly be another section in our page on the 'visionary'- there is currently no site for 'mediamorphosis' on Wikipedia ether.  A site I found that may be particularly useful is the following: 

http://www.wtn.net/2004/bio40.html

This page describes Fidler and his work, including a brief biography and description of the work he considers "most innovative."  I had a hard time finding much more information on Fidler using Google, and found even less using Ask.com.  I am pretty confident we can gather enough information to create our own site on Fidler and his work, however, it may take a good deal of research and hunting around online to find everything.

There is also not a great deal of information on the World Brain or H.G. Wells either.  While they have a list of all his work, it may be interesting to add more information about his background, rationality behind the 'World Brain,' critcisms or praise for this idea, etc.  I think what Steph wrote on her blog would also be great information to add; we can find more in our textbook as well.  There is a great deal of information online about both H.G. Wells and the World Brain (such as https://sherlock.sims.berkely.edu/wells/world_brain.html) so I am not worried about finding information missing on Wikipedia.

The Controversy

The Wikipedia Controversy

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki

The first search tool I used for my second posting was dogpile.com, a metasearch engine. Because I was not sure how much information is online about how Wikipedia may be controversial, and because metasearch engines are good at finding information on rare topics, I hoped that dogpile may lead me in the right direction. The first search terms I used were “against Wikipedia,” assuming this would take me to pages, organizations or individuals that take an anti-Wikipedia stance. The first site I found that looked promising was titled ‘A Stand Against Wikipedia,’ located on the ‘Insider Higher Ed’ Website. This site describes itself as “the online source for news, opinion and jobs for all of higher education,” and was founded by three prestegious journalism experts. I therefore consider it to be very reliable. In addition, the article is relatively recent as it was written on January 26, 2007.

The argument that this article illustrates is very useful for our presentation as it provides an account of Middleburry Collge’s recent decision to ban students from citing the site. It outlines the opinion of those who are against Wikipedia, and how they are uneasy about the site’s reliability. The main reason I think this article is important, however, is that it provides a real-life example that the class will likely relate to; many students have had discussions with teachers as to the site’s credibility. It also has quotes from Wikipedia spokespeople defending the site, which are useful. While the anti-Wikipedia individual people’s evidence is simply sites with incorrect information, the article actually includes a study by Roy Rosenweig who “did an analsis of the accuracy of Wikipedia.” Finally, there are an incredible number of personal comments on the article which may be useful to include as further opponents to (or defendents of, depending) the website.

http://www.thebayareaintellect.com/jimmy-wales-founder-of-wikipedia-speaks-at-common-wealth-club/

In a comment posted on the first article I chose, a man explains how the founder of Wikipedia recently spoke about the proper use of the site. There was a link to the website where this second article was located, which I then followed. Searching that site, for the Bay Area Intellect, I found an article titled, ‘Jimmy Wales, Founder Of Wikipedia, Speaks At The Common Wealth Club.’ The information I found was very interesting; it cited the founder as explaining that Wikipedia “should not be considered a citable reference or primary source.” He then explains how Wikipedia ensures the accuracy of its articles, and furthermore how this is not very difficult. This article will be useful as it provides a defense for Wikipedia- the founder explains the other side of the story for those who are in favor of the site. The website, thebayareaintellect.com, is run by two editors who write about talks that occur in the San Francisco area. I consider the information credible, as it sites its sources and provides direct quotes from the conference, which can be checked against other sources with transcripts of the talk.

About Wikipedia

About Wikipedia

 

            According to Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia is “an effort to create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest quality to every single person on the planet in his or her own language.”  In other words, the site is a collaboration of people’s work and knowledge from around the world.  Started in 2001, it is now one of the largest reference websites on the Internet.  In fact, over 9,000,000 articles have been added by as many as 75,000 users, written in over 250 languages!

            Technically, Wikipedia uses a software known as MediaWiki- a wiki “that allows users to create, edit, and link web pages easily.”  Anyone with access to the Internet can enter the site and write or edit articles continually, leading to improved quality and accuracy over time.  In addition, the site believes that this continuous editing process results in a “fair and balanced representation of information” as well.

            When an article is first written on Wikipedia, it is rarely 100% accurate and neutral.  However, after discussion, argument and debate, consensus eventually leads to a neutral point of view.  Individuals who add and edit articles are fondly known as “Wikipedians,” and there are a number of efforts in place to make sure information remains accurate and reliable.  First, an article written by an active contributor is not verified until citations are supplied for it.  Secondly, anyone can view changes made to pages as they happen by opening the ‘Recent Changes’ page.  There is in fact a Recent Changes Patrol, a voluntary group of users who monitor the Recent Changes section and continually correct and update inaccurate information.  In addition, it is Wikipedia policy for its administrators to delete libelous material; they are chosen through community discussion and have the power to prevent pages from editing and block users from changing articles.

            As explained earlier, anyone can both contribute new articles and editing existing ones on the encyclopedia.  This results in a compilation of work by people of all ages, cultural backgrounds and societies.  However, users must work within Wikipedia’s ‘Editing Policies,’ for example, they must be referenced or are likely to be removed.  The website also has its own editors who ensure the site remain a “high-quality resource.”  These editors also create editing programs to track incorrect or unverified edits.  According to the site itself, there are over 1,000 administrators monitoring the site continuously.  Finally, when editors can’t agree or solve a problem, a judicial committee steps in a decides the issue.

            A sure way of finding reliable pages is by searching the site’s “Featured Articles” section.  Here, editors choose the articles they consider the best and delegate them as a Featured Article.  Once an article is chosen, it is reviewed by Wikipedia: Featured Article candidates for ‘accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style.’  Following Featured Articles are those considered ‘Good Articles,’ or second in quality and reliability.

            A useful feature Wikipedia offers is the linked text that appears throughout articles.  Basically, text throughout an article may be highlighted, and when clicked on takes the user to a relevant page or article.  In addition, other links are offered at the end of articles, including ‘other articles of interest, relevant external web sites and pages, reference material,’ etc.  Another way of contributing to the site is by adding more links if you feel one is missing.

 

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/magazine/01WIKIPEDIA-t.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=cc8a71cf15fcaff4&ex=1340942400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/About:Wikipedia

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Very_Frequently_Asked_Questions

 

 

            The search tool I used initially was Yahoo.com, mainly because I almost always rely only on Google and wanted to experiment with a new search engine.  I used the search term “about Wikipedia” to find how the site works, hopefully in a language I’d be able to understand!  Luckily it wasn’t technical at all and I found it extremely easy to read and understand.  My search led me to over 345,000,000 articles, and I chose Wikipedia’s own article as well as a New York Times article written on the subject.  I believe these two articles provided accurate and reliable information, as they were both heavily cited and, in Wikipedia’s case, constantly edited and updated.  Both of their missions are to spread knowledge and information, and both articles were fairly recent  (NY Times in June 2007, Wikipedia was last edited… today!).  The information I found on Wikipedia’s website was almost overwhelming- however, it was all extremely useful and I was able to pick and choose the pages I found most relevant.  I noticed that a number of articles have been written on the controversies raised by Wikipedia and the different viewpoints about the encyclopedia.  Therefore, I’m not at all worried about the second and third sections of our project… I don’t think we’ll run into any problems, even with finding examples and stories illustrating the different issues.

 

-Question to group members: I found lots of other information that we may want to include, although it is more about the site’s background than how it actually works.  Do you think we should include who owns the encyclopedia, information about The Wikimedia Foundation, etc.?  Also, do you think we might want to quickly take the class through and example of a Wikipedia page edit?  May take up too much time and we may be doing it in class, but it also may help illustrate how the site works….

 

Hola!

Welcome.