In the last four chapters of The World and Wikipedia Andrew Dalby tries to convince me that my feelings towards Wikipedia is not just a superficial like but a meaningful love and that I can one day strengthen my trust in it. I have to say that I am not convinced because most of Dalby's points are directed towards active members of Wikipedia and I am just a reader. However Dalby makes sound and provoking statements.
Dalby starts off the second half of his book by giving a glimpse of what editors and contributors go through in order to produce an article. By reading about this I realized for the first time that Wikipedia is a social network. Never before had my eyes wandered away from the content of the articles on Wikipedia to the top right corner of the page where the "Log in/create an account" link sits. Judging from the information given by Dalby on the feuds and scandal involving Wikipedia's network of people, wikipedians are charismatic and opinionated. A particularly funny conversation on a Wikipedia talk page is between wikipedians The Cunctator, Robert Merkel and founders Lawrence Sanger and Jimmy Wales ; this conversation consists of a dispute over the proposed establishment, by Sanger, of a Wikipedia militia/guard/committee that basically "...keep things running in any emergency"(pg 23). It is humorous because everything from trollish behavior to free buffets are discussed reminiscent of a playground fight. As a result of this conversation, however, administrators of Wikipedia were given the right to delete on sight any new page if it "...is nothing but vandalism, or a misspelling, or totally unsuited to an encyclopedia..."(pg 124); and so, to say that Wikipedia's talk page consists of meaningless banter is an understatement. Harassment between wikipedians is also common and is the reason why many wikipedians have deleted their accounts. Some of the reasons which Dalby gives to explain why many more people continue to join and participate in Wikipedia is because they enjoy the social aspect, the sharing of knowledge and the eternal truth of Wikipedia; wikipedian Ram-man claims:"It's fun for me."(pg 118).
The global use of Wikipedia and controversies related to them were also interesting to read about. As it turns out, American scholarly encyclopedias are not the only ones suffering from Wikipedia's popularity; Germany's Brokhaus and Norway's Store norske leksikon are a few foreign encyclopedias which have stopped producing print versions (pg 199) due to drops in sales. I was surprised to learn that Germany actually gave state funding to German Wikipedia. Another shocker was that "Microsoft finally announced in March 2009 that Encarta, both DVD and online, was closing down."(pg 201); Encarta was one of the "reliable" sources that my teachers in grade school encouraged me to use.
With all of these changes in the market of encyclopedias, Dalby points out an important fact about Wikipedia's articles; he states that "Wikipedia tends to ensure...that it is never ahead of the consensus of opinion but always slightly behind it." (pg 195). This is to minimize the potential of false information floating around as a result of Wikipedia. In the book Computers:The Life Story of a Technology by Eric Swedin and David Ferro it is stated that in the year 2000, studies showed that "51 percent of U.S. families owned a computer and 41 percent of U.S. homes had Internet access"(pg 132). With this information, when it is considered that Wikipedia was named the seventh most popular online reference work by Alexa the influence that Wikipedia has on society is immense(pg 192).Jimmy Wales is aware of this and so both he and many wikipedians try to be responsible posters of information on the internet (pg 223). Because of this, Dalby claims that "Wikipedia has grown up" ( pg 225).
Given this information, I am now better equipped to navigate through Wikipedia. Sited information are the most reliable and I will not rely on Wikipedia for the "First news on what's about to happen"(195). Niel Postman states in his book Technopoly the fear that "Cultures may also suffer grievously from information glut, information without meaning, information without controlled mechanisms.”(pg 70) but if contributors of Wikipedia continue to edit and control the information presented in Wikipedia, people will continue to have free access to valid information about the world.
Dalby starts off the second half of his book by giving a glimpse of what editors and contributors go through in order to produce an article. By reading about this I realized for the first time that Wikipedia is a social network. Never before had my eyes wandered away from the content of the articles on Wikipedia to the top right corner of the page where the "Log in/create an account" link sits. Judging from the information given by Dalby on the feuds and scandal involving Wikipedia's network of people, wikipedians are charismatic and opinionated. A particularly funny conversation on a Wikipedia talk page is between wikipedians The Cunctator, Robert Merkel and founders Lawrence Sanger and Jimmy Wales ; this conversation consists of a dispute over the proposed establishment, by Sanger, of a Wikipedia militia/guard/committee that basically "...keep things running in any emergency"(pg 23). It is humorous because everything from trollish behavior to free buffets are discussed reminiscent of a playground fight. As a result of this conversation, however, administrators of Wikipedia were given the right to delete on sight any new page if it "...is nothing but vandalism, or a misspelling, or totally unsuited to an encyclopedia..."(pg 124); and so, to say that Wikipedia's talk page consists of meaningless banter is an understatement. Harassment between wikipedians is also common and is the reason why many wikipedians have deleted their accounts. Some of the reasons which Dalby gives to explain why many more people continue to join and participate in Wikipedia is because they enjoy the social aspect, the sharing of knowledge and the eternal truth of Wikipedia; wikipedian Ram-man claims:"It's fun for me."(pg 118).
The global use of Wikipedia and controversies related to them were also interesting to read about. As it turns out, American scholarly encyclopedias are not the only ones suffering from Wikipedia's popularity; Germany's Brokhaus and Norway's Store norske leksikon are a few foreign encyclopedias which have stopped producing print versions (pg 199) due to drops in sales. I was surprised to learn that Germany actually gave state funding to German Wikipedia. Another shocker was that "Microsoft finally announced in March 2009 that Encarta, both DVD and online, was closing down."(pg 201); Encarta was one of the "reliable" sources that my teachers in grade school encouraged me to use.
With all of these changes in the market of encyclopedias, Dalby points out an important fact about Wikipedia's articles; he states that "Wikipedia tends to ensure...that it is never ahead of the consensus of opinion but always slightly behind it." (pg 195). This is to minimize the potential of false information floating around as a result of Wikipedia. In the book Computers:The Life Story of a Technology by Eric Swedin and David Ferro it is stated that in the year 2000, studies showed that "51 percent of U.S. families owned a computer and 41 percent of U.S. homes had Internet access"(pg 132). With this information, when it is considered that Wikipedia was named the seventh most popular online reference work by Alexa the influence that Wikipedia has on society is immense(pg 192).Jimmy Wales is aware of this and so both he and many wikipedians try to be responsible posters of information on the internet (pg 223). Because of this, Dalby claims that "Wikipedia has grown up" ( pg 225).
Given this information, I am now better equipped to navigate through Wikipedia. Sited information are the most reliable and I will not rely on Wikipedia for the "First news on what's about to happen"(195). Niel Postman states in his book Technopoly the fear that "Cultures may also suffer grievously from information glut, information without meaning, information without controlled mechanisms.”(pg 70) but if contributors of Wikipedia continue to edit and control the information presented in Wikipedia, people will continue to have free access to valid information about the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment