For class last week we watched the Jimmy Wales and Andrew Keen debate on the issue of Wikipedia and we also read an article about smart mobs. From what I can gather, Wikipedia is essentially a smart mob. A "practical implementation of collective intellegence", a group that "behaves intellegently or efficiently because of its exponentially increasing network links", an "indication of the evolving communication technologies that will empower the people". Ironically, all of these definitions of a smart mob came from Wikipedia.
The Jimmy Wales and Andrew Keen debate was for the most part discussing whether Wikipedia was a creditble source or not. What was pretty much concluded is that Wikipedia is a good source to go to for quick information, information that you do not need to do heavy research for to find. It is practical and efficient, and it empowers people to become a part of something, all of which are characteristics of a smart mob. It also shows how are technology is allowing any person to contribute to a unit of information, rather than just professionals. I use wikipedia to find basic information such as who someone is, to find the importance of a certain place, or to get more information on something I dont know that I hear or read about. I would like to use it for research papers since it is very accessible, however that would not go over too well.
The problems with wikipedia arrise when people question the importance of certain materials. The example of how someone might think Harry Potter is more important than Hamlet was discussed in the debate, since the Harry Potter entry is longer than the Hamlet entry. Also, people question whether professional reporters are being rewarded or not for their work since people are going to these quick search engines instead of professional sources.
In this day and age, technology allows the everyday person to access and input information on the internet. The fact that people might think Harry Potter is more imporant than Hamlet, or that the internet is more useful than professional's work, only shows how our priorities are changing through time.
I remember when Wikipedia first came around, and there was a time, be it a short time, when I could have cited Wikipedia in a paper and gotten away with it. It quickly became frowned upon and then became totally against the rules. I think that just as quickly as it became "wrong" it could be accepted back into academia. I hope that it will one day be a widely used and respected source of information.
ReplyDeleteI have actually had professors that allowed Wikipedia as a cited source for more technical papers. Its easy to see a right or wrong definition when the topic is clear cut such as a math definition or science term, but when statistics and opinion are involved is when Wikipedia become unreliable.
ReplyDeleteSince it's open source people tend to comment on things they are interested in and like you said we can see "our priorities changing". People are more interested in harry potter than hamlet.