Hello, I’m Margarethe Van Der Tuin and the first thing I'd like to say is that I'm a little nervous. This is my first experience reading and writing on a blog page and I'm unsure what to expect or what is to be expected of me. So with that in mind I hope this not completely off the blogging brick road and maybe you too have some of the same curiosities as I.
Well, to begin with here is a little about myself. I am from
When thinking about the internet and everything from facebook to AIM to online dating to shopping the area that I question most is Wikipedia. I will admit even when my professor says DO NOT USE (in the most threatening of tones) Wikipedia because it is not a scholarly source I am always tempted when I hit a mind block to look up anything and everything. So for all of you who have the same guilty pleasure to quick search a historical fact or a musician’s latest album up on Wikipedia, this is for you. I remember back in high school the first time I found out that anyone can write anything on Wikipedia and it’s basically as good as published to someone like me. I was so shocked! I found out that one of my friends would write blurbs up about music he liked despite having no professional background in music or real training in developing his opinion on this because the point was that he had an opinion and Wikipedia was his way of expressing it.
So, I guess I’d like to better understand how this website seems so legitimized by society yet so openly shunned for being unreliable. Why is it that every time I need to look something up I will always drop a peak on Wikipedia. I love it and I don’t know why because I could be getting false information on anything and everything. Would I ever go to a class where the professor did not have any studies or evidence to support what he or she was teaching? No, I would think it was a bogus waste of time yet Wikipedia to me is somehow different…
4 comments:
Wikipedia's reputation is a very interesting subject. On the small scale, each detail in considered unreliable, but on the whole the site contains mostly correct information. Academically, these small uncertainties make it hard to quote and use as a source. Overall however, the site remains reliable for the general public because of the hard work its dedicated editors (in particular the administrators). I find these people very interesting: Most maintain a detailed profile, describing themselves, the pages they worked hardest on, and the pictures and diagrams that they contributed. Some of the most resolute members protect Wikipedia guidelines (which are written and approved by members) to the death. They remove information that is not sourced, pictures that are copyrighted, and topics that are not notability, all in an effort to make Wikipedia a reliable source. I believe it this these hardworking, underappreciated editors who make Wikipedia a reliable source (to those who believe it is a reliable source).
First of all, let me just say that I love the pink. More to the point though, I admit that I share the same obsession with Wikipedia. For a long time, I too didn’t know that it was open to anyone to post information on. Since Wikipedia is an open and collaborative source, how reliable is it really? According to an article by Roy Rosenzweig entitled “Can History Be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past,” Wikipedia is very credible. Each topic posted on is edited, added to, or cut from; in the end, Wikipedia has only a few more mistakes than the average Encyclopedia. The same study by Rosenzweig also proves that Wikipedia is roughly equal to Encarta in accuracy and actually surpasses it in coverage. So, although it is open for anyone (like your friend) to post on, Wikipedia, as a whole is a great source of information. This raises another question then: Why, then, is Encarta considered crediable and Wikipedia is not?
I think most college students can relate to what you've said. In fact it seems like almost all of us rely on Wikipedia, whether our professors like it or not. The interesting thing about Wikipedia is that so many people continue to use it, despite the fact that many of them don't trust it as a reliable source. Whether or not this is true is one thing, but why we use Wikipedia is another.
In a world where we are constantly bombarded by information, Wikipedia offers us the quick and dirty summary of almost anything. In college we are routinely assigned hundreds of pages of reading on a given subject, often in the form of scholarly articles and repetitive examples. Just as reading the cliff notes for a novel would get us out of a jam in high school, Wikipedia tells us just what we feel we need to know.
In another COMM class last semester, we discussed this Wikipedia issue at length. While there are many arguments for and against the use for Wikipedia, I agree that Wikipedia is, on average, very credible. I would argue that Wikipedia is an excellent starting point for scholarly research, but one must follow up with other sources. One question for you and the other COMM 245 students is how has your usage (or lack of usage) of Wikipedia affected how you conduct research and write papers at Cornell? It would also be great if someone blogged about their own collaborative "wiki" efforts, as you mentioned your friend had done.
Excellent post!
Post a Comment