PLime

http://www.plime.com/

Plime is a news culture site. In this site, the community can add and edit different links such as a wiki site – the structure and editorial content is in the hands or fingertips of the community. One can also meet different people with similar interests.

What is …? I don’t know – just Wikipedia it ~ Chapter 4

When one needs to do research on a certain topic or is just curios, one usually wikipedias it. Wikipedia has become a go to source – one can find out enough on a certain subject to be knowledgeable. Unfortunately Wikipedia is not that reliable in terms of using it as a source for a paper. Wikipedia has a few mistakes on its articles but overall it gives you a good idea on the subject. I personally use Wikipedia to find articles and books for a research paper. Wikipedia is a good starting point.

Wiki-Textbooks

This morning, The New York Times ran this article about textbooks that professors can rewrite digitally. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/business/media/22textbook.html?ref=todayspaper

The article details the decision of Macmillan Publishers, which is one of the five largest publishers of textbooks, to introduce a software called DynamicBooks, which will give college instructors the ability to edit digital editions of textbooks and customize them for their individual classes. Professors will have the ability to reorganize or delete chapters, and insert course syllabuses, notes, videos, pictures and graphs and rewrite or delete individual paragraphs, equations or illustrations.

In class, we spoke briefly about academia's hesitance to embrace Wikipedia. I wonder if the collegiate community will be more willing to accept this type of "Wiki," since revisions and changes are on their terms, from their academic disciplines, not from ordinary people.

You Digg It?

In complete honesty, I had never heard of Digg until earlier this semester when it was mentioned passively in class. I have still not visited the site, yet plan to at least check it out for myself at some point.

After reading about Digg, in New New Media by Paul Levinson, I have come to the conclusion that it's not that bad an idea. Levinson makes mention of a few alternative sites that serve the same purpose as Digg but have not be as successful. But I don't think there should be such a fuss about the "abuse" of its services as people have begun to "lobby" it, whether fiscally or another means. First and foremost, I'd like to disconnect the association that is overlooked of people who "bury" articles by lets say Ron Paul, and those who use money and other schemes to make certain things more popular.

These are two very different actions because the abuse that is happening when people are providing money to Digg something or promoting articles for money is something that defeats the purpose of the democratic principles of the website. When money is brought into the equation, it is at the cost of rationality and free thought. Let's be serious, who wouldn't "digg" something that may not like or care about for a few bucks? But this is different than those activists who are burying Ron Paul articles, because that's the purpose of the site, if you genuinely disagree with an article or it's content, you bury it. That's all they are doing, it's just in an organized manner.

In all, I think Digg may be a great idea and a good site, I'll found out for myself soon, but let's not treat it as our best source of information and articles. I like to think Digg is a good site to get a little information that will urge you to read something more substantial, similarly to how Wikipedia works, as a base. You Digg it?

WikiScanner

The following clip from Fox News was posted on YouTube. The news comments on the fact that anyone can write and edit Wikipedia entries. In response, the news anchor describes a search tool called WikiScanner that can trace the computers that were used to edit the entries.



While Wikipedia is often criticized for its open editing and thus some unreliable information, big companies have been taking advantage of such freedom. Corporations such as Walmart and Phizer were mentioned in the clip to have been traced for editing their articles on Wikipedia. Wikipedia founder, Jimmy Whales, comments that edits from such large corporations are usually done by “some employee at work who’s sort of overzealously defending the organization.” But surprisingly, computers from the FBI, the UN, the Vatican, and even Fox News itself have also been traced by WikiScanner. It makes you wonder what’s worse; an individual editing Tony Blair’s middle name on Wikipedia to Whoopdy-doo? Or big name corporations and government establishments editing, and essentially manipulating, Wikipedia articles to reveal some sort of bias or to gain favor?

Wikipedia vs. Britannica

I was very surprised to learn that the errors found in Wikipedia were not very different from errors found in Britannica, in terms of numbers. Levinson cites Nature magazine's research that "the experts found an average of four inaccuracies per Wikipedia article and three per Britannica article (p. 93)." Personally, this does not seem to be a huge difference.

Using wikipedia could actually be more beneficial than using Britannica. This may sound crazy because for the most part, Britannica is widely respected, while Wikipedia has a multitude of critics. My point is simply that students understand the criticisms of Wikipedia and are willing to check the facts using other more reliable sources. However, most students (at least me) usually take Britannica or any other reliable encyclopedia at its words because it is based on experts rather than any normal citizen. As a result, fact-checking is important both on Wikipedia and Britannica.

Another advantage of Wikipedia over Britannica is the speed with which it can be updated. The false reports on the deaths of Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd were deleted within five minutes of their posting. Obviously, this presents a drawback of the problem of vandalism, but it also speaks to the power and effectiveness of editing to ensure the information on Wikipedia is accurate. Editing inaccurate information in Britannica takes a much longer time. In conclusion, Britannica may not be the better encyclopedia after all.

No More Books?

Chapter 4 of Paul Levinson's New New Media focuses on Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia teachers seem to hate most. I suprisingly found the debate over the use and reliability less interesting than the question Levinson asks of "Does Wikipedia make libraries unnecessary?" The answer from the book seems to be, "Not yet."

However, I would have focused on how it isn't Wikipedia making the case against books, but the internet. There is an increasing availability for entire books, excerpts, and information from books online. Teachers are copying things on to Electronic Reserve for students to read on the computer or print out instead of buying the books, and Google and search engines are encyclopedias themselves. I agree that books aren't in danger, and they very well may never be, but it isn't Wikipedia that is their problem,

Wikipedia vs. Academia: An Information Battle

Professor Levinson's chapter on Wikipedia taught me a lot I did not know about a site I use basically on a daily basis. I was not aware of the "deletists" and "mergists" roles people take on and the theory about heritage playing no role in determining who gets an entry.

I think it is interesting how Wikipedia is both glorified (seen as an amazingly democratic information resource) and villainized (seen as untrustworthy source never to be used for serious purposes). I actually went to a lecture during my freshman year at Fordham sponsored by the English department that instructed students never to use Wikipedia and how it was basically ruining the academic community.

I personally think that the site is great for quick background information (I had to write a short piece on investment liquidity last week at my internship- something I knew nothing about- and Wikipedia saved me). Other information resources online are not as organized and accessible, and other online encyclopedias charge for use. For longer research papers, I actually find myself beginning my research on Wikipedia. I obviously NEVER quote Wikipedia directly- instead I read the background it provides and then I refer to the primary source links at the bottom. These sources are often very reputable, contain great information and would not be easily located through a general Google search. I think academia's hesitance to embrace Wikipedia is understandable, but I think instead of banning it completely, they should teach students how to use it as a channel that leads to other information, information that often actually comes directly from their academic community.