Weinberger also states that internet places such as Wikipedia have undergone intense media criticism, because of the fact that all it's authors are miscellaneous. I find this to go hand in hand with Mccloud's ideas that comics are considered juvenile in intelligence; authors that can't show a list of their credentials are considered a hoax. But according to Wikipedia, credibility is not based on credentials, but on an authors contributions. Which is what the standard for all authors should be in my opinion. The point of having such credentials is to be able to create such articles as on Wikipedia. In fact Wikipedia states that it encourages pseudo identities above gathering a persons actual identity and credentials. The success of Wikipedia, lies in the ideas of a social consciousness. The idea that collectivily we can provide each other with the information needed, from a simple easy to use and for the first time, free site. The glorified idea of knowlege being spread from man to man has lead to colleges, libraries, books, and finally the internet. And yet in each case the need for knowledge has been a way to make a profit.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Wienberger 7&8
Wienberger's thoughts on Wikipedia in chapter seven were the most interesting and though provoking parts of the reading. He starts off by explaining the ways newspapers rank space, moving on to the ways the digital world ranks space. I enjoyed the way Wienberger placed into words the importance of internet ranking of information. He states: "enabling groups of readers to influence one another's front pages not only brings us more relevant information, but it also binds groups socially. He also states that knowledge is content organization, which is becoming a social act. I find this to be incredibly true even as I watch conversations among my peers. Especially with movies, if you are a movie fan, with today's internet capabilities and standards you should know everything about that movie from the director right down to the original inspiration for the movie. Really, if I could record what I hear and place it on this blog as an example I would. The comparison of one's knowledge on a particular subject have become a past time, at least with my experiences and I'd be extremely curious to know if anyone has had the same experience over the years.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that these two chapters were among the more interesting of the Weinberger book. It's interesting that you raise the point of "free information." Looking at it this way, wikipedia seems like a culmination of the evolution of shared knowledge. On the other hand, it also raises the question of access. Books used to be only accessible to the very wealthy, but libraries have made them accessible to just about anybody. At this point in time, who has access to the internet? Not necessarily the very wealthy, but certainly the more privileged. Maybe this will change eventually as well.
ReplyDeleteAll of your posts seem to be complete and well thought-out.
RE: what Bethany said. YES. Thank you for raising the issue here. Next week, when we read Banks' chapter, questions of access are at the heart of his argument. The chapter is from a book called _Race, Rhetoric, and Technology: Searching for Higher Ground_.
ReplyDeleteThis is a nice summary of the reading, but I am wondering what your position on wikipedia is? And what do you think about the whole neutrality and anonymity thing?
ReplyDeleteI believe you have all of the posts completed with interesting examples. I would put you on the rubric between the 3 and 4. Good job! I always enjoy reading what you have to say.