I am finally on my last comment on an article from one of the required blogs. I found one that ties into what we are doing in this class. We are all well familiar with Wikipedia. So, when I found the article titled Wikipedia. Just how popular is it? I thought it would be perfect to talk about because it incorporates the other aspect of our blog project.
The article says that Steve Rubel found that one-third of Americans that use the Internet have used Wikipedia as a source. Also it is used more than all written encyclopedias combined. I find this interesting because I have never used Wikipedia before this class. I have heard of it before, but for some reason I remember hearing that it is not really a reliable source so I stayed away from it. Rubel also says that more young people than old people take advantage of what Wikipedia has to offer. He also mentioned that him and Robert Israel used Wikipedia as a main source when writing one of our class books, Naked Conversations, believing it to be 100% accturate. Lastly, Rubel discusses something called “Wisdom of Crowds.” I did not know exactly what that term was so I looked it up on Google. Ironically enough the website that was first on the list was the Wikipedia article for it. Basically I found that it means that when a group of people work together they usually come up with better and more accurate information than a single person working alone. Rubel feels that this idea is correct and it helps that Wikipedia can be corrected by anyone and improved on by whoever is interested.
I actually do not agree with Rubel on some of his points. I do think that Wikipedia can be a good source, but it has its faults. When I read that Rubel said more young people use it he attributes that to the fact that young people are more technologically advanced and into the new trends. I do not think this is the reason. I think it is because younger people do not exactly understand the concept of a wiki. For example, in my Communication in Business class in which we create and deliver speeches, my teacher told us that we were prohibited to use Wikipedia as a reliable source. Most of my classmates had no idea why we could not use Wikipedia and when I told them what Wikipedia really was they were very surprised. They really did not know anyone could add or subtract from those articles. Also, I was amazed at the fact that Rubel said he and his coauthor used Wikipedia as the main source for Naked Conversations. I think it is acceptable to use it as a secondary source to simply verify the information that is found on a reliable source first, but he said they used it as a primary source. As long as they checked with other sources to make sure the information on Wikipedia was the same, then I think that is all right. The only problem would be if people did not check with other sources believing that Wikipedia was nothing but accurate information. I do not agree with Rubel when he said that it was 100% accurate. It is possible that the articles he used were accurate, but I am sure that there are plenty that are not. For articles in which people have a lot of interest in, people are motivated to make it accurate and keep it accurate, but for articles in which people do not seem to care about it is extremely probable that they are not totally accurate. Finally, I kind of agree with the “wisdom of crowds” theory. This seems correct, the only issue I have with it is that it takes one person in the crowd to ruin things for everyone so that is a problem.
All in all, I am glad I found and read this article. I am very surprised about all that Rubel said. Maybe I will change my opinions later to match his as more people become familiar with Wikipedia and understand what exactly it is and learn to respect it and only add accurate information to it. As for now I will just stick to using Wikipedia to finish up my blog work.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
That sounds like a really interesting article and I agree entirely with your comments on it. It is rather surprising that such a well known person would use wikipedia as a prime sources of research when really it could be completely wrong. After this class I've also learned a lot about wikipedia and knowing that people like me write it, I'm definitely more cautious when reading it. The one thing I found really surprising about this article was the whole "wisdom of crowds" thing. While that is true to some point, "group think" is also possible in which a group all starts to go the same route. Anyways great article!
It was an interesting article. I could not beleive either that they used Wikipedia as a primary source. I actually would never use Wikipedia as a primary source after taking this class and seeing that anyone can edit it and put in false information if they feel like it (even though that may be unethical). That is a very good point you made about "group think." I forgot about that term. I think that "group think" does take over in the majority of group work. Once one or two people say something, the others may feel obligated or pressured to agree and keep their true personal opinions to themselves. Very good point! Thanks for your comment!
Post a Comment