I have known about wikipedia for many years and I always used it for outside of school research. For some reson for school work, in my trials wikipedia was unreliable. After looking at Baker’s article, i agree with him that freedom of speech has its pro’s and cons when it comes to the internet. Like Baker i feel that people have right to freedom of speech and we all should be mature enough to post only facts on websites where people go to learn. Wikipedia in previous years have been very easy to just go on as a guest and edit a whole document on the page and there was no real review process on the page, however wikipedia is making a big turn because now they have a lock on certain pages/articles to avoid vandalism of commonly looked up information. With freedom of speech comes great responsibility and so we all should watch how we use this freedom.
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- December 5 – groups for the online documentation project | LIB 1201 Fall 2012 on Online documentation project
- Notes from today, and assignment for Wednesday, December 5 | LIB 1201 Fall 2012 on Online documentation project
- Notes from today, and reading & blogging assignment for Monday, December 3 | LIB 1201 Fall 2012 on Final Research Paper
- mhernandez55 on Citing and credibility- Miguel Olivares
- Notes from today, and assignment for Wednesday, November 28 | LIB 1201 Fall 2012 on Final Research Paper
t a g s
Badke baker blogging Copyright Digital Age digital media documentation facebook H.W homework Homework 3 homework one hw HW#7 hw5 Hw6 information_fog internet_searching joey joeysHW Journal LIB1201 library Media My own experience New Techology Online privacy online_documentation_project Pavlik plagiarism privacy producers of digital media public domain readings Research strategies research_paper_writing search engines social media syllabus Technology textbook wikipedia World Wide Web youtube zinesCategories
Archives
Meta
I completely agree with you that since the introduction to the Web 2.0, now anybody can find and edit information. Of course there are advantages and disadvantages to this as someone can put useful information and complete an article, meanwhile someone else can create vandalism on an article. I also really wished that out world would be mature enough to help each other out instead of making our lives more difficult than it needs to be. Well… it can’t be helped and this is why Wikipedia has taken certain repercussions in order to prevent certain individuals from destroying the website with unreliable and false information. Like you, I have also used Wikipedia for years and I’m happy to see that they have definitely improved on the reliability of the website. Thanks to some generous users, they review articles on a daily basis to look for vandalism and in some cases the website locks certain articles, like you mentioned. Usually it’s the articles that are very popular and controversial like Justin Bieber and Britney Spears, but sometimes it’s the articles that pertain to important current events that are about to take place.
I also agree with you. I really enjoy looking through Wikipedia and finding information on certain topics. It’s worrisome that a lot of the information posted may not be reliable though. I can’t understand what’s so appealing about going on Wikipedia and posting information that you know not to be true. Is it people trying to rebel? Is it them trying to be funny? It just seems like they’re wasting their time to do something that doesn’t benefit them or anyone else in any way.
I think that Wikipedia is one the best tool of research nowadays, so those who play this bad game which to display on this valuable website some incredible information are merely stupid because they are harming an entire generation.
Instead, i believe that everyone should contribute as he can to the wellness of Wikipedia by avoiding those bad acting. The result will be profitable for the whole humanity.