World Wide Web of Wikipedia-Assigned Readings

Spiro

"Many employ Wikipedia either as a source for information about contemporary culture or as a reflection of contemporary cultural opinion. "

"But an encyclopedia can be a valid starting point for research"

"Wikipedia covers topics often left out of traditional reference works, such as contemporary culture and technology."

I am this type of Wikipedia user. I think part if it's appeal to our generation is that Wikipedia has all the pop culture references that a regular encyclopedia does not. We have the best of both worlds in one database: I can find Barack Obama's background in the same place I can find what episode of Frasier my favorite quote came from.

Even better are the sources under the references section-real and factual. I wouldn't say that Wikipedia is a resource to site, but it can lead you to those sources.

The fact that it is user-editable is both a blessing and a curse. Mistakes can be corrected almost instantaneously, but there are people out there that feel joy in spreading lies. Similar to trolls, these users find joy in providing Wikipedia with false information. Yes, there are people who spend a lot of time correcting false entries, but Wikipedia is so vast that theirs is a useless labor. As soon as something is corrected, it can be un-corrected.

I've never clicked on the history tab. I never thought to look at the stages of the article-there might have been an an entirely false page at one point. It never occured to me that I could tell what kind of people have been editing the article based on past records. I suppose we can use the history to judge how reliable the current is.

Orlowski

"an edit to his Wikipedia biography implicated in him in the Kennedy assassination, and claimed he'd lived in Russia for twelve years. Both claims were false, and lay uncorrected for months."

"Chase thought Wikipedia was a joke site and he made the edit to amuse a colleague."

Yet another reason why too much power in the hands of the user can be dangerous. People think putting this kind of stuff on the internet is funny, never thinking about the ramifications. I guess the freedom of being able to write anything you feel and know that the site is being used by millions must be exhilarating.

Wikipedia, to me, is a gigantic search engine, only much more stablized and streamlined.
Instead of having to sift through hundreds of web sites, a general overview of the entire subject is in one place.

"this defense firmly puts the blame on the reader, for being so stupid as to take the words at face value"

I don't think anything on the internet, or in books for that matter, should be believed as absolute truth. But then again, you can't live not trusting anything you read.

How sure can we really be about the validity of information, anyhow? Did you witness the original Pearl Harbor? We can never be absolutely sure what information is true, but some sources are more reliable than others. Printed information in books and newspapers has gone through many editors and correctors. But there isn't a filter on Wikipedia. The only editor is the  user who just happens to be paying attention. But god knows how many people just take evrything at face value.

Key Policies and Guidelines:

"Wikipedia is not a democracy, and its governance can be inconsistent"

"Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias."

Yes, entries should be written from a neutral point of view, but many are  not. Case in point: a couple of weeks ago, I was doing some research for my Inform game in EL 405. At one point, a character in the game was to scream "Just because I_________ does not mean I"m emo". I wikipedia'd the entry on emo culture, looking for general characteristics. I found them, and also discovered that the entry was pretty much a hate site. There were so many negative things  written about emo people, comments which were curse filled-similar to youtube trolls. I just visitied the site again. The entire entry on emo culture has been edited to reflect a neutral point of view. I can't even describe the change in the entry-the old one was disgusting.

"This page was last modified on 4 November 2008, at 23:16."

Five Pillars

"Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. " (1)

"therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community."

"Be civil. Avoid conflicts of interest, personal attacks or sweeping generalizations."

(1)Yet that is exactly what the emo entry was about a month and a half ago. The characteristics of emo were described in a mocking, disrespectful, belittling tone. But enough people must have typed the term into the search engine and been angered enough to give the entry an complete overhaul. At least some people are adhering to the pillars-these are the guardians. I highly doubt people are being paid to correct Wikipedia entries-that would be a thankless job.

The original entry I discuss was written by a person(s) who was obviously annoyed with the whole emo culture, so he/she/they decided to write a mocking entry. Opinions belong in blogs-not in an information lexicon. That's great, whomever you were/are, that you hate people who are very different from you. But other people are not as annoyed with difference as you are. Maybe other Wikipedians are just curious about a sub-culture and just want to find out more about it. Your opnions are what you feel and think-but that doesn't make them right or factual. Opinions cloud observations-you sir/ma'am, are extremely biased. Go write in your diary-WHICH IS NOT WIKIPEDIA!!!!!!!