For this class our midterm was to audit a Wikipedia entry and present on our results. This is only the second time that I have dealt with some of the back-end procedures of Wikipedia. (The first time was creating/editing my own Wiki for another class.) Auditting was a truly next-level experience and I could honestly admit that at some points I noticed myself sort of enjoying it. Our topic was Polygamy in North America and as soon as this topic came to light I knew there was going to be some sort of bias involved with its resources. It's almost impossible to have a topic that is closely related to a major/controversial religion and not have bias information. Needlessly to say, we, as a group, were confident that we would dig up something interesting to present.
A little about our process:
We first thought about splitting up the article into sections and tackling the assignment that way with each person focusing on a different section. Someone had the thought that it was possible for other sections to touch on each other and kind of tie the whole article together. For example, if there was something that could be considered 'missing' in one section, it was likely to be addressed in the next since the section titles were only loosely descriptive. This would cause more work than necessary to be done in the long run. Ultimately we decided to independently read the article and contrive our own thoughts about it then meet up and use what we agreed on as the premise for our project. It seemed to work out well because at the meeting we were all ready on track for determining bias and non-credible sources.
What we found:
After examining all of the sources cited in the Wiki article we found a considerable amount of information that was from Mormon websites. These articles and web references were mostly in support of Polygamy as a lifestyle dictated by religious practice. While there was nothing outlandish in most of the article's claims, just the nature of where they came from was suspect. Tom also noticed that there were four citations on one statistic that had little to do with the topic of the articles. We concluded that the Wiki got so diluted by users editing it that whatever statement was originally made got transformed into a small factoid.
Our Topic was Polygamy in NORTH AMERICA and we were surprised with the lack of information regarding Canada and Mexico. After a small amount of google-ing we noticed that there is a TON of information out there about polygamy in Mexico and Canada, but none of it was included in the Wiki. Max, in my opinion, did a great job at pulling out some of the most crucial of this information.
After working on this project I am a little hesitant about using Wikipedia. The information is written with such confidence that its sometimes really tough to figure out what is true and what is not. I feel like from now on I will be more interested in reading the sources from Wikipedia articles rather than just trusting them right off the bat. I think like more people should audit Wikis in order to fully understand the websites purpose.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Facebook Effect I
So Facebook... yeah. This social networking site has gone BEYOND being just a popular Internet outlet for people wishing to connect with friends. For some it has become a part of a lifestyle, for others it is life and for even more people is has become a second life. It is much more than your plain old social networking site. Never in my life have I seen something that makes people hate it so much and yet still use it... almost religiously. A friend of mine has deleted his Facebook three times now, always rebounding after about a week or so with some lame excuse like he doesn't know what events are happening when anymore. I find it really funny when people discuss things like how Facebook is so great, but dont understand how they can make money of the idea and keep doing all this stuff. You know that saying 'If you cant tell who the sucker is... than its YOU'? Well it works in this case too. If you cant figure out the product Facebook is selling, than its YOU!
So there's this website where you post all your personal information with a privacy policy that changes every two weeks that has been known to distribute the aforementioned personal info to advertising companies and government agencies. Try explaining that to someone thats never used to Facebook then convince them to join. I'm not too thrilled with the overwhelming popularity of Facebook and often wish that people would just let it go. By having most friends only communicate through this medium it has kept me on so far. Although I AM a Facebook user, I feel that at least I am not in denial about what it actually is and try to keep as little about myself on there as possible. This is has kind of been my personal outlook on Facebook and like most opinions could probably be totally argued against, but since no one comments on my blog I feel like I'm safe saying whatever I want. Let's move to the book.
The first section of The Facebook Effect by David Kirkpatrick tells the story of young Mark Zuckerberg as an undergrad student at Harvard who slowly developed one of the most influential pieces of Web 2.0. The first chapter is all about glorifying Zuckerberg as this greater-than-you, super academic mega-nerd that gets all the babes and loves his white board. This is the first problem I ran into while reading this book. It is SO apparent that Kirkpatrick loves Facebook. He's describing Zuckerberg as a hero of his time claiming that he's so creative and such a hard-worker and a 'deliberate' thinker. That having a conversation with the guy is a mind-opening experience. If you read any other objective writing about Zuckerberg, it kind of says the same sort of things, but he comes off as a huge jerk. As I am NOT a fan of Facebook, I all ready can tell that this book is gonna have some 'come on.... REALLY?!' moments in it.
My interpretation of the M.Zuck story would be more or less about how this privileged kid pissed off all his roommates by not cleaning up his garbage (its ok, he had a nanny when he was growing up!), then created some killer pieces of software that everyone loved. Proceeded to get his roommates involved with the creative process, thus gaining their friendship and then stole all their ideas and made a billion dollars. Definitely sounds like TIME's person of the year material to me. I suppose when the rest of the competition consists of people like LeBron James and Lady GaGa there isn't much hope left anyway. (TIME's Person of the Year 2010 Poll Results)
disclaimer: For those that couldn't really tell, this blog entry was sort of an experiment for me to be as bias on the opposite side of Kirkpatrick as possible and show that without objectivity it is difficult to create valid resources. Over the course of the hundred of so pages, Kirkpatrick makes some good points about the evolution of social networks and the technology behind it. I was just so struck by how he portrayed Mark Zuckerberg that all I wanted to do was write about how much he sucks. IRL I am much more willing to see both the positive and negative in any topic or situation , I assure you.
So there's this website where you post all your personal information with a privacy policy that changes every two weeks that has been known to distribute the aforementioned personal info to advertising companies and government agencies. Try explaining that to someone thats never used to Facebook then convince them to join. I'm not too thrilled with the overwhelming popularity of Facebook and often wish that people would just let it go. By having most friends only communicate through this medium it has kept me on so far. Although I AM a Facebook user, I feel that at least I am not in denial about what it actually is and try to keep as little about myself on there as possible. This is has kind of been my personal outlook on Facebook and like most opinions could probably be totally argued against, but since no one comments on my blog I feel like I'm safe saying whatever I want. Let's move to the book.
The first section of The Facebook Effect by David Kirkpatrick tells the story of young Mark Zuckerberg as an undergrad student at Harvard who slowly developed one of the most influential pieces of Web 2.0. The first chapter is all about glorifying Zuckerberg as this greater-than-you, super academic mega-nerd that gets all the babes and loves his white board. This is the first problem I ran into while reading this book. It is SO apparent that Kirkpatrick loves Facebook. He's describing Zuckerberg as a hero of his time claiming that he's so creative and such a hard-worker and a 'deliberate' thinker. That having a conversation with the guy is a mind-opening experience. If you read any other objective writing about Zuckerberg, it kind of says the same sort of things, but he comes off as a huge jerk. As I am NOT a fan of Facebook, I all ready can tell that this book is gonna have some 'come on.... REALLY?!' moments in it.
My interpretation of the M.Zuck story would be more or less about how this privileged kid pissed off all his roommates by not cleaning up his garbage (its ok, he had a nanny when he was growing up!), then created some killer pieces of software that everyone loved. Proceeded to get his roommates involved with the creative process, thus gaining their friendship and then stole all their ideas and made a billion dollars. Definitely sounds like TIME's person of the year material to me. I suppose when the rest of the competition consists of people like LeBron James and Lady GaGa there isn't much hope left anyway. (TIME's Person of the Year 2010 Poll Results)
disclaimer: For those that couldn't really tell, this blog entry was sort of an experiment for me to be as bias on the opposite side of Kirkpatrick as possible and show that without objectivity it is difficult to create valid resources. Over the course of the hundred of so pages, Kirkpatrick makes some good points about the evolution of social networks and the technology behind it. I was just so struck by how he portrayed Mark Zuckerberg that all I wanted to do was write about how much he sucks. IRL I am much more willing to see both the positive and negative in any topic or situation , I assure you.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Obsolescence III
In this third installment of my interpretation of Giles Slade's book Made to Break I would like to focus specifically on a chapter titled 'Weaponizing Planned Obsolescence'. Right off the bat, this chapter title grabbed my attention. I was hoping that it would ultimately be where Slade gets into the nitty-gritty of how planned obsolescence is used as a weapon by companies against its consumers (cause that would be some interesting stuff!). To my slight dismay it focused much more on how planned obsolescence affected the evolution of actual weapons, which is still pretty cool, I guess.
The chapter starts out comparing the evolution of technology in the US to that of the Soviet Union. I feel like this is worth mentioning mostly because it directly relates to a previous blog entry that I wrote about the importance of the integrated circuitry. Apparently the USSR was about 10 years behind technologically than the US and this put us at a HUGE advantage when it came to weapons manufacturing. So I feel that its fair to update that not only has the integrated circuit allowed for a huge boom in technology at the time of its creation, it also had a large contribution to the sociopolitical efforts of the time.
Things start to get interesting when the USSR, in desperate need of this new technology (US embargo is preventing them from receiving it at this time), resort to espionage to acquire it. This is where the whole idea of planned obsolescence starts coming into play. Gus Weiss, a security adviser at the time, came up with the idea to let the Soviets get a hold of the technology, but plan for it to be obsolete shortly thereafter. They sold the Soviets chips that appeared to be normal, but would eventually cause 'catastrophic malfunctions'. As dirty and deceitful as this was, it was also brilliant. This forced me to take a different perspective on the idea of planned obsolescence. I cannot shake my initial feeling that its wrong, but at least now I believe I have a more objective look at the topic, having the ability to see both the positive and the negative.
I want to bring up, as a final point another statement that was mentioned in this chapter that really stood out to me.
"When people are persuaded, advertised, propagandized, and victimized into throwing away their cars every three years, their clothes twice yearly... then we may consider most other things fully obsolete." (Slade pg. 228)
This quote pretty much sums up what I believe is wrong with planned obsolescence. Especially where we stand today technologically. Don't you think we owe it to ourselves to just slow down for a minute? I guess that is just not the nature of our society though. On the plus side, if it bailed us out of a recession once, perhaps it will work again.
The chapter starts out comparing the evolution of technology in the US to that of the Soviet Union. I feel like this is worth mentioning mostly because it directly relates to a previous blog entry that I wrote about the importance of the integrated circuitry. Apparently the USSR was about 10 years behind technologically than the US and this put us at a HUGE advantage when it came to weapons manufacturing. So I feel that its fair to update that not only has the integrated circuit allowed for a huge boom in technology at the time of its creation, it also had a large contribution to the sociopolitical efforts of the time.
Things start to get interesting when the USSR, in desperate need of this new technology (US embargo is preventing them from receiving it at this time), resort to espionage to acquire it. This is where the whole idea of planned obsolescence starts coming into play. Gus Weiss, a security adviser at the time, came up with the idea to let the Soviets get a hold of the technology, but plan for it to be obsolete shortly thereafter. They sold the Soviets chips that appeared to be normal, but would eventually cause 'catastrophic malfunctions'. As dirty and deceitful as this was, it was also brilliant. This forced me to take a different perspective on the idea of planned obsolescence. I cannot shake my initial feeling that its wrong, but at least now I believe I have a more objective look at the topic, having the ability to see both the positive and the negative.
I want to bring up, as a final point another statement that was mentioned in this chapter that really stood out to me.
"When people are persuaded, advertised, propagandized, and victimized into throwing away their cars every three years, their clothes twice yearly... then we may consider most other things fully obsolete." (Slade pg. 228)
This quote pretty much sums up what I believe is wrong with planned obsolescence. Especially where we stand today technologically. Don't you think we owe it to ourselves to just slow down for a minute? I guess that is just not the nature of our society though. On the plus side, if it bailed us out of a recession once, perhaps it will work again.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Obsolescence II
In my first blog post about this topic, I started mentioning how planned obsolescence was making its way into the consumer market. The middle chapters of Made to Break provide an in depth look at how consumer products were affected by this from the early twentieth century up until the 1960's. Some of the topics that are touched upon are radios and radio wave technology, raw material manufacturing, automobiles, and household appliances. Aside from simply describing the evolution of these technologies, Slade also makes a strong effort to inform readers of the cultural nuances of the time that caused this the boom in planned obsolescence.
In chapter 4, Slade provides readers with a brief, yet very informative, introduction to the history of communication in America. He touches on all the big names in radio, focusing mostly on Edwin Armstrong who was the the leading pioneer in FM-radio technology. Right around the the time that FM radio was getting big, David Sarnoff, a friend of Armstrongs and leader of RCA, had planned for the television to be the invention that would make radios obsolete. This is one of the first instances where a major corporation, despite having a brand new technology, allready planned on inventing something that would replace it in a few years. Sarnoff referred to this as his 'supplantive theory' of business, which was very much related to the concept of planned obsolescence, a term which would be defined many years later. (Slade pg. 91)
Fast-forward to the 1950's, with Motorola's invention of the pocket radio. The pocket radio was revolutionary in the fact that its production had an enormous range of quality control. Motorola developed an automated soldering process that allowed for tiny transistor radios to be built very fast and very cheap. The problem with the radios was that they were not able to be repaired, so if they broke consumers would have to buy another one. This started a trend in miniature electronics that would continue for decades.
Slade makes reference to a periodical that describes three separate types of obsolescence. The first one is Obsolescence of funtion and what this term means is that a product performs the same function as another product, but with updated features or different craftsmanship. This technique is very much associated with the type of obsolescence used in retail personal computer market. The second term is obsolescence of quality. This means that the quality of a product is intentionally designed to degrade. Think of the pocket radio mentioned in the previous paragraph. The last form of obsolescence is obsolescence of desirability which refers specifically to style trends. Once a product is out of 'style' it is considered obsolete despite still performing its original function or not.
In chapter 4, Slade provides readers with a brief, yet very informative, introduction to the history of communication in America. He touches on all the big names in radio, focusing mostly on Edwin Armstrong who was the the leading pioneer in FM-radio technology. Right around the the time that FM radio was getting big, David Sarnoff, a friend of Armstrongs and leader of RCA, had planned for the television to be the invention that would make radios obsolete. This is one of the first instances where a major corporation, despite having a brand new technology, allready planned on inventing something that would replace it in a few years. Sarnoff referred to this as his 'supplantive theory' of business, which was very much related to the concept of planned obsolescence, a term which would be defined many years later. (Slade pg. 91)
Fast-forward to the 1950's, with Motorola's invention of the pocket radio. The pocket radio was revolutionary in the fact that its production had an enormous range of quality control. Motorola developed an automated soldering process that allowed for tiny transistor radios to be built very fast and very cheap. The problem with the radios was that they were not able to be repaired, so if they broke consumers would have to buy another one. This started a trend in miniature electronics that would continue for decades.
Slade makes reference to a periodical that describes three separate types of obsolescence. The first one is Obsolescence of funtion and what this term means is that a product performs the same function as another product, but with updated features or different craftsmanship. This technique is very much associated with the type of obsolescence used in retail personal computer market. The second term is obsolescence of quality. This means that the quality of a product is intentionally designed to degrade. Think of the pocket radio mentioned in the previous paragraph. The last form of obsolescence is obsolescence of desirability which refers specifically to style trends. Once a product is out of 'style' it is considered obsolete despite still performing its original function or not.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Obsolescence in America I
As a technology major, the idea of planned obsolescence is something that always struck my interest. From one perspective, it is a truly brilliant marketing scheme. Take technology, something that is all ready growing at an immense pace, and build devices that can only keep up for so long. This forces pressure on consumers to be in constant need of an upgrade, thus spending more money and allowing technology companies to flourish. I believe most users are aware of some of the growth trends of technology. I mean, why else would they be buying new computers every couple of months if they didn't realize this (I hope that not everyone simply takes what Microsoft and Hewlett Packard says as gospel). However, I do not think they realize how badly they are being suckered by these manufactures.
This is the point at which I admit that I worked in retail selling computers for four years and was more or less convincing people every day that their relatively recent computers were totally obsolete. At the same time I had a desktop computer that was five years old then (and close to 8 years now, I still use it) running fine with only a few small upgrades to the RAM and sound card. This ultimately took a huge toll on my conscience and I just couldn't do it anymore. It was probably the push to sell uselessly expensive warranties based on a pitch of lies that really put me over the edge. That which has no soul, surely should pursue a career in sales. So that's kind of a summation of my personal experience with planned obsolescence. With that being said, there were some things mentioned in Giles Slade's book Made to Break that just didn't even cross my mind.
Early in the book, Slade discusses a few points about early product marketing and development that led up to the idea of planned obsolescence. The first topic mentioned was the over the top branding that companies started utilizing. One of Slade's examples is Swinger sewing machines. They didn't want people to refer to their product as their 'sewing machine' but rather their 'Swinger'. So they slapped a huge logo of their name across the top. Soon every manufacture was creating clever ways to design or package their product to catch the eyes of consumers. This not only made their products nice and pretty, but started a new trend of brand loyalty where consumers developed trust that they would get the same quality product from a company no matter where the product was purchased.
At this point, companies that created expendable goods such as food products, soaps, and things alike were benefiting greatly. People had bought into their product and since these things run out, chances were they would buy them again the next time. But what about products that aren't expendable? With proper maintenance there are some things that could last a lifetime. The previously mentioned sewing machine for example. Well this is where the idea of annual model changes and probably the very first instance of planned obsolescence comes into play. Companies started creating a new line of products every year claiming to have more than last years model. Needless to say, people got hooked. These companies convinced consumers that it was important to stay ahead of the curve and own all the latest products. So back to the sewing machine example. You could purchase one sewing machine and probably keep it throughout several generations of upgraded sewing machines before your actually NEED another one, but the desire to have something new is an overwhelming sensation for some.
This idea carried over well into the age of computers, were obsolescence became a key marketing strategy. Somewhere along the lines there was someone that decided people were getting wise to the fact that they did not need a new product every year. Companies were losing money due to unsuccessful product 'improvements' that just were not as good as the previous generations. The solution was to start creating products that were made to only last a certain amount of time. This is undoubtedly where the title of Slade's book came from.
A Note on Ethics:
The idea of planned obsolescence is surrounded by a nasty air of deteriorating ethical standards. Major technology companies are kind of playing their consumers for saps by telling them that the products they put so much confidence in previously are no longer good now that the consumer all ready owns it and a new product is available. I get that these companies need to make money and I also get that new products need to come out in order for technology to advance, but there is a limit and I feel that more often than not this limit is tested. On a final note, Slade also mentions how the discarding of obsolete technology is having a negative effect on the environment. Of the millions of technology devices that get thrown out each year, and incredibly small percentage of them get recycled, Most end up eating away at the earth in dumps. Just another thing to think about.
This is the point at which I admit that I worked in retail selling computers for four years and was more or less convincing people every day that their relatively recent computers were totally obsolete. At the same time I had a desktop computer that was five years old then (and close to 8 years now, I still use it) running fine with only a few small upgrades to the RAM and sound card. This ultimately took a huge toll on my conscience and I just couldn't do it anymore. It was probably the push to sell uselessly expensive warranties based on a pitch of lies that really put me over the edge. That which has no soul, surely should pursue a career in sales. So that's kind of a summation of my personal experience with planned obsolescence. With that being said, there were some things mentioned in Giles Slade's book Made to Break that just didn't even cross my mind.
Early in the book, Slade discusses a few points about early product marketing and development that led up to the idea of planned obsolescence. The first topic mentioned was the over the top branding that companies started utilizing. One of Slade's examples is Swinger sewing machines. They didn't want people to refer to their product as their 'sewing machine' but rather their 'Swinger'. So they slapped a huge logo of their name across the top. Soon every manufacture was creating clever ways to design or package their product to catch the eyes of consumers. This not only made their products nice and pretty, but started a new trend of brand loyalty where consumers developed trust that they would get the same quality product from a company no matter where the product was purchased.
At this point, companies that created expendable goods such as food products, soaps, and things alike were benefiting greatly. People had bought into their product and since these things run out, chances were they would buy them again the next time. But what about products that aren't expendable? With proper maintenance there are some things that could last a lifetime. The previously mentioned sewing machine for example. Well this is where the idea of annual model changes and probably the very first instance of planned obsolescence comes into play. Companies started creating a new line of products every year claiming to have more than last years model. Needless to say, people got hooked. These companies convinced consumers that it was important to stay ahead of the curve and own all the latest products. So back to the sewing machine example. You could purchase one sewing machine and probably keep it throughout several generations of upgraded sewing machines before your actually NEED another one, but the desire to have something new is an overwhelming sensation for some.
This idea carried over well into the age of computers, were obsolescence became a key marketing strategy. Somewhere along the lines there was someone that decided people were getting wise to the fact that they did not need a new product every year. Companies were losing money due to unsuccessful product 'improvements' that just were not as good as the previous generations. The solution was to start creating products that were made to only last a certain amount of time. This is undoubtedly where the title of Slade's book came from.
A Note on Ethics:
The idea of planned obsolescence is surrounded by a nasty air of deteriorating ethical standards. Major technology companies are kind of playing their consumers for saps by telling them that the products they put so much confidence in previously are no longer good now that the consumer all ready owns it and a new product is available. I get that these companies need to make money and I also get that new products need to come out in order for technology to advance, but there is a limit and I feel that more often than not this limit is tested. On a final note, Slade also mentions how the discarding of obsolete technology is having a negative effect on the environment. Of the millions of technology devices that get thrown out each year, and incredibly small percentage of them get recycled, Most end up eating away at the earth in dumps. Just another thing to think about.
Current Events BLOG
The current events article that I spoke briefly about on Monday was titled Your Next Facebook 'Friend' Could Be A Federal Agent and it discussed the concern that government presence is starting to make its way on to social networking websites. The article suggests that federal agents will try to befriend people to investigate cases involving them. I always assumed that our private information on the web could magically be accessed by the government at at time so the fact that there is a need to 'befriend' someone came across as a little odd to me. Regardless, they claim that because having more friends may signify higher web status, people are willing to accept requests from users the do not know just to add another number on their friend list. I thought for sure that this fad of accepting strange friend requests went out of style along with MySpace, but apparently people have not quit seeking to be the one with the most friends... real or not. Sooner or later this will be back to bite them, I guess.
This article claims that the Facebook Feds are using the site to "reveal personal communications, establish motives and personal relationships, provide location information, prove and disprove alibis, and establish crime or criminal enterprises," which in my opinion is a little crazy. These sites were created for entertainment purposes and are, especially in the past year or two, getting a lot of people into trouble that could have been avoided if they hadn't been posting on Facebook like it was their private journal. The scariest part about this article is that it references playing Facebook detective as a new form of undercover policing where the government would have no problem pretending to be one of the friends of family members. Although its totally creepy for someone, even a federal agent, to go study what you say about yourself in order to build a profile, I could live knowing that it happens and just make sure I'm careful with what I say on there. For someone to pose as someone I know to extract information out of me sounds more like fraud than investigation and is not acceptable on ANY level.
I suppose that there are some positive aspects having government presence on the web. Assuming you aren't doing anything illegal, there's really nothing to worry about. There have also been examples of Facebook evidence proving people innocent. Rodney Bradford, for instance, updated his status to read "Where's my pancakes" at approximately the same time that a crime he was being charged for was committed. The courts checked the information from Facebook and came to the conclusion that Rodney was not their man, and he was let go. So while, I am an advocate for web privacy, I am not blind to the benefits of the government monitoring Facebook. My suggestion, however, is to ALWAYS think before you act... even on the web. Oh, and also update your status with inane comments frequently to provide a solid alibi.
Here's a LINK to the article.
This article claims that the Facebook Feds are using the site to "reveal personal communications, establish motives and personal relationships, provide location information, prove and disprove alibis, and establish crime or criminal enterprises," which in my opinion is a little crazy. These sites were created for entertainment purposes and are, especially in the past year or two, getting a lot of people into trouble that could have been avoided if they hadn't been posting on Facebook like it was their private journal. The scariest part about this article is that it references playing Facebook detective as a new form of undercover policing where the government would have no problem pretending to be one of the friends of family members. Although its totally creepy for someone, even a federal agent, to go study what you say about yourself in order to build a profile, I could live knowing that it happens and just make sure I'm careful with what I say on there. For someone to pose as someone I know to extract information out of me sounds more like fraud than investigation and is not acceptable on ANY level.
I suppose that there are some positive aspects having government presence on the web. Assuming you aren't doing anything illegal, there's really nothing to worry about. There have also been examples of Facebook evidence proving people innocent. Rodney Bradford, for instance, updated his status to read "Where's my pancakes" at approximately the same time that a crime he was being charged for was committed. The courts checked the information from Facebook and came to the conclusion that Rodney was not their man, and he was let go. So while, I am an advocate for web privacy, I am not blind to the benefits of the government monitoring Facebook. My suggestion, however, is to ALWAYS think before you act... even on the web. Oh, and also update your status with inane comments frequently to provide a solid alibi.
Here's a LINK to the article.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Wikipedia II
So I realized that my last entry about Wikipedia was pretty long. I am going to do my best to keep this one short and sweet; discussing briefly some of the trust issues associated with Wikipedia and its users. As we all ready established, most of the accuracy concerns with Wikipedia's content stem from the fact that it is mostly user generated. Dalby explains how there is no way of really knowing who is making edits or what motives they have for doing so. This also poses a problem when it comes to topics that little information is known about. In chapter 7, Dalby references an argument between two members of British Government about the age of famous painter, Titian. He mentions that the wiki article for Titian has provided several separate birthdays including some claims that the information is unknown. The article was edited and reedited quite a bit which made both of sides of the argument valid at one point or the other. It would have been pretty simple for one of those guys to go there, edit the article to favor his claim, and then show the other guy. Now think about this; two guys were having a dispute over the age of if Titian and one of them changes the Wikipedia entry to say he was born in 1490 to satisfy his claim. At the same time, someone researching the painter goes to Wikipedia for some basic knowledge and copies down the birthday into his notes. Although that information may or may not be correct, other people aside from the two disputing are constantly accessing it. This is why it is a difficult resource to trust.
Despite knowing that there is always the possibility of snagging some bum information from Wikipedia it is still one of (if not the) most trafficked reference site on the web. It's all about accessibility and Wikipedia has played that card so well. Not only is Wikipedia a given when it comes to getting any results from a search engine, but a wiki search bar has been implemented into the corner of many popular web browsers. Wikipedia is available is 262 languages with somewhere in the vicinity of 16 million articles that span across these editions. I mentioned in my last entry how in the past 3 or 4 years the people working at Wikipedia headquarters have dedicated a lot of time to preventing Wikipedia accuracy problems. They are at the point now where they feel Wikipedia is becoming a much more reliable source and are sure they can win the trust back of anyone that has been burned before.
Despite knowing that there is always the possibility of snagging some bum information from Wikipedia it is still one of (if not the) most trafficked reference site on the web. It's all about accessibility and Wikipedia has played that card so well. Not only is Wikipedia a given when it comes to getting any results from a search engine, but a wiki search bar has been implemented into the corner of many popular web browsers. Wikipedia is available is 262 languages with somewhere in the vicinity of 16 million articles that span across these editions. I mentioned in my last entry how in the past 3 or 4 years the people working at Wikipedia headquarters have dedicated a lot of time to preventing Wikipedia accuracy problems. They are at the point now where they feel Wikipedia is becoming a much more reliable source and are sure they can win the trust back of anyone that has been burned before.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)