Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Just try and burn this library, Amr ibn al'Ass!
There was an interesting op piece reprinted in the MN Daily from the UCONN Daily Campus paper about Wikipedia that I thought I'd share. I remember the good professor (Zapsyou) and I briefly discussing it's merit as academic resource a while back, so it seemed relevant to share it. I am someone who often uses wikipedia to bolster my repertoire of pointless minutiae and for quick references on obscure historical details that certain pompous authors (Umberto Eco, say) obnoxiously insist on making vital elements to their plots. Is this foolish of me? Am I putting too much faith into a compendium that most academic institutions find dubious, at best? The article suggests that I am not. In fact, it suggests that Wikipedia has the potential to become the most authoritative source on world knowledge. This goes too far, in my opinion, but the author doesn't make the statement without a defense. I don't know, read and discuss. Read and discuss.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Wikipedia is the modern day encyclopedia. When I was a kid and wanted to learn about Christopher Columbus or Haiti I would consult my Encyclopedia Britannica and be on my way. However, with modern day figures and relatively new topics that are changing at a rapid pace there is a need for a fluid, relaxed forum for information to be shared. Effectively, Wikipedia is a chat forum with a massive amount of information, both current (which I value most) and historical (which I do not trust). When I need to write a paper, I think not using Wikipedia goes without saying because there are those out there who decide to take it upon themselves to attempt to sabatoge the sanctity of this "information superhighway". This is sad, but you know there's some doofus out there telling us that Bill Clinton was getting a BJ from Monica his desk while discussing the bombing of Kosovo with Bill Richardson, which is just not credible information, however entertaining it is. At the same token, if I want to know who the young chick from Gossip Girl is because she is amazing, I can consult Wikipedia, cause who's going to lie about that shit. I'm trying to get pictures and a bio just like everybody else. Conclusion: Historically accurate? probably not
Entertaining? Incredibly
A good starting place for anything that is information? Infinitely
You gotta read the article James. Bogus entries, especially ones on indisputable historic fact, remain unedited for approximately 100 seconds. there are enough people cruising wikipedia who take it upon themselves to change or at best, flag dubious articles. it really is quite a foolproof system, if readers take the responsibility to flag something they see as either arguable or flat out false. what the author argues is that if everyone, not just fans of gossip girl or batman, would be willing to share their knowledge and experience in entries, that would make the doubters claim unfounded.
why'd you delete your comment, jimi? i didn't mean to discourage you or anything.
Post a Comment