bg6
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by bg6 on Jul 13, 2011 21:30:13 GMT -5
Setting up a Wikipedia account was very easy, especially because providing an email address is optional. After setting up my account what I found most difficult was finding something I could edit. Many of the subjects that I thought that I would be able to edit or add something to not only had that, but also had even more information than I had already known about that particular subject. When I finally found something to edit, I found it extremely easy. The moment I hit the “save page” button, my revision was right up there. This is consistent with Poe’s description because even when you are just making a minor revision like in my case. By hitting the editing button “you’ve just contributed to the progress of human knowledge. All in under five minutes, and at no cost.” Wikipedia and Slashdot are similar in the sense that they both rely heavily on their user’s to keep their sites to continue running as well as the feedback they get from their user’s. The feedback that is essential for the success of Wikipedia is the “watchful members” of the site who come in to stop the malfeasance shortly after it begins on the site mainly when pertaining to a high-profile entry. As Johnson said it is a struggle to balance between the positive and negative feedback, which is what keeps the information from becoming partial towards one side or another.
|
|
bg6
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by bg6 on Jul 13, 2011 21:35:10 GMT -5
mrschreckI also agree that it was very easy to edit the page, but you bring up a good point with subjects like religious beliefs being blocked from just any person editing it. I think it brings more credibility to not only the information but to the site as well.
|
|
|
Post by atomisk on Jul 13, 2011 21:37:05 GMT -5
@ Anna11Banana I also struggled to find a Wikipedia page that needed editing. Through series of constant feedbacks, users continually edit the information of Wikipedia pages until the the information is elaborate upon, and accurate. Due to the large amount of users covering a wide array of topics being discussed on the site, the older a page is, the less editing takes place (as far as I can tell). Really? I didn't think it was that hard. I just looked up my favorite Producer and one of his original tracks was listed as a remix. Try finding an article about something you like that isn't too well known.
|
|
|
Post by gmfreeman on Jul 13, 2011 21:56:52 GMT -5
Writing in Wikipedia was a very easy process, all i had to do was register and i could add or delete content at will. It is very easy to tell that this page is driven by the user, and it is very easy to edit false information. All entries are driven towards facts just like in Johnson's user generated content sites. Wikipedia is like Slashdot in that the posts are corrected and analyzed by other users after they are made, so facts are always right, and opinions are always a consensus. This collaboration of knowledge is constantly regulated by user feedback to make sure its facts are completely accurate.
|
|
|
Post by gmfreeman on Jul 13, 2011 22:00:57 GMT -5
elm318I agree that the process of editing Wikipedia is so easy! So much easier that I had originally thought it would be. Also I think that it is really interesting that pages such as religions are blocked which I never would have thought but makes a lot of sense considering the things hateful people may write. Yeah, I also thought it was strange that biographies and other things relating to certain people are blocked, but only until your new username gets into their servers or you have 10 validated wiki posts.
|
|
|
Post by nickisonlyme on Jul 13, 2011 22:39:39 GMT -5
When I visited Wikipedia, as I have in the past, I always have found myself struggling to find mistakes to correct, even if I am pointedly searching for them. The rumor that Wikipedia is unreliable seems contrary to the impeccable appearance of Wikipedia. Is it the tidy aesthetic and organizational schedule that puts to rest any doubts? Personally, the layout is visually appealing. Or could it be that users so frequently edit pages that any defective information is or has been extracted before we begin to take notice of any fallacy. I'm skeptical of this possibility. Though this is the supposed function we indirectly think about when we hear 'Wikipedia', that users can freely revise a Wikipedia page, but I have never been told by anyone they had edited a page on the online encyclopedia. I do, however, often come across incomplete pages. The information provided is not necessarily false, but needs one of the many fabled users to supply knowledge for the rest of the world. But if I cannot put forth an example of someone editing a Wikipedia page, how can I begin to believe anyone researches a topic and consequently constructs full pages? This is simply a thought that always intrigues me. It is strange though that I should concern myself with this when I have edited a page myself, even before this assignment. But I remember specifically that I quickly abandoned Wikipedia for other distractions. I suppose that my skepticism is consequent of my experience. It stems from the tediousness I found in the action, and I assume everyone else would feel the same.
|
|
|
Post by dancergirl1393 on Jul 13, 2011 22:46:27 GMT -5
As most people have stated, Wikipedia is a very easy site to edit. All you need is an account and the ability to find something that needs edited. Most of the information on the site is very well written, elaborated on and come from a reliable source which makes it more difficult to really find something worth editing. One of the reasons that I feel it is so easy to edit wiki is because the admins of the site check the information AFTER it is added. One of the things that they try to do is to make sure that you site a source so they can check and make sure the information is correct. The process is very much like Poe described because there is really no difficulty for anyone that can use a computer to edit the information. Wikipedia and slashdot are both community run and both seem to be thriving, but there seems to be differences in how it is edited.
|
|
|
Post by hdolphin411 on Jul 13, 2011 23:12:46 GMT -5
@anna11banana It was also pretty hard for me to find a good subject in which I knew enough to add something that wasn't already there. I spent a while searching through profiles of places and stores I am pretty familiar with, but in the end I found Ava Nova's ( ) post to be helpful and I went with one of my parents companies.
|
|
|
Post by ucsspirit15 on Jul 14, 2011 0:21:54 GMT -5
The column that I chose to edit on Wikipedia was the article on my high school, particularly the part about the Delta Program. The process was surprisingly simple. I thought it was interesting that providing your email address was optional because nearly every site requires you to provide it. I assume that since they don't really campaign, that they don't need to send out emails about what's happening in the community. I think it is very consistent with Poe's description because users are very capable of making changes; however, they must be able to accept the fact that their content can be edited or completely eliminated if deemed necessary. For Wikipedia to be successful, both positive and negative feedback systems must be in place. Positive feedback drives more submissions to be made, and negative feedback responds to those submissions and edits them. Wikipedia is like Slashdot because both creation and regulation are generally controlled by the users. There is some intervention made by leaders for regulation of content, but only in extreme cases. In Johnson's article, he really tried to emphasize the importance and magnitude of the shift in information sharing. He goes on to explain how feedback loops work for the better or for the worse of the system, and how this can impact our daily lives. These are no little developments to be taken lightly. They aren't a passing fad, and will only grow in importance in society. I think Wikipedia shows the sheer force of what a collective online can do with a couple feedback systems set in place. The English version has 3.5 million entries alone, and all have been produced and provided to the public, by the public, for free. Of these 3.5 million entries, none of them are "truths", as expressed by Poe. "Truth" is not always what is in front of our faces. Truth is actually anything that can be agreed upon by the community. This, the idea of collective knowledge, is what drives Wikipedia. If information on a certain topic can be verified and agreed upon by the community of Wikipedia, than it is assumed to be the truth and worthy of having an entry on the site.
|
|
|
Post by ucsspirit15 on Jul 14, 2011 0:26:55 GMT -5
@ben Yedwabnik
I don't agree with what you said about Slashdot and Wikipedia not being similar. I don't think the content of the sites has anything to do with how they are organized and essentially created. Both rely on positive and negative feedback to generate the best content possible.
|
|
|
Post by atomisk on Jul 14, 2011 0:55:26 GMT -5
I've always found that editing wikis and user generate content sites are extremely useful. I've been a mod on multiple wikis for various communities and an active participant in many more. With all my years as an internet dweller, I do have to say that wikis are the most useful websites on the internet, mostly due to their bottom-up nature. I believe that wikis are consistent with poe's description. More or less anyone can edit a page, and mistakes will continually be corrected until they are correct.
I think that wikis are similar to slashdot, but mainly in the fact that articles or stories continually go through feedback loops. In wikis, articles go through feedback loops of user editting until the article is completely updated. However, on slashdot, articles simply go through feedback loops of comments and discussion. On a wiki, you get a final product that can be presented as a result of discussion and the feedback loop. But on slashdot, the article is only bumped to the top, and those who get involved in the discussion are the only ones who reap the benefits.
|
|
|
Post by Bethany Shirilla on Jul 14, 2011 8:06:43 GMT -5
Wikipedia is very similar to Slashdot in the sense that it is a collection of knowledge and applies the ideas in “Listening to Feedback.” It heavily relies on feedback to determine what information is “truthful” and remain on the page, but it does so in a unique way. Wikipedia’s use of feedback is less conversational and more informational. I wouldn’t go to Wikipedia for an opinion or review, such as Slashdot, but I would go there anticipating accurate information needed for research. It is amazing how to relatively different sites depend on self-governing processes to expand and reach success. Also stated in Johnson’s article was the idea of a set of guidelines, which pertains to Wikipedia as well. Looking under the “community portal” selection, there were several collaborative “rules” and suggestions of the ways in which Wikipedians, the community, can partake in such an effort.
|
|
|
Post by Bethany Shirilla on Jul 14, 2011 8:13:47 GMT -5
@ Anna11Banana
I was also wondering about Wikipedia's copyright policies. I searched for their policies on Wikipedia itself, and found a page of interesting information as well as this imporatant notice. "The Wikimedia Foundation does not own copyright on Wikipedia article texts and illustrations. It is therefore pointless to email our contact addresses asking for permission to reproduce articles or images, even if rules at your company or school or organization mandate that you ask web site operators before copying their content." Of course, usingI a site that does not have copyright policies does worry me just a litte, I cannot lie. I want accurate information and would rather have a copyright policy in use. One must rely on the self-governing quality of its success, however, and trust the Wikipedia is producing accurate, truthful "collaborative knowledge."
|
|
|
Post by ndesai on Jul 14, 2011 8:48:11 GMT -5
I have never edited a Wikipedia page and I must admit, I felt a sense of accomplishment once I saw my final edits. I was really surprised at how easy the process actually was ( sorry to sound redundant!). I thought it was much more of a hassle but no, anyone can edit this thing. What I decided to edit was my high school's page - Westford Academy. Although the page already had a lot of correct information, there was a lot of bias on the page as well as some missing information. Some of the bias I encountered were phrases like " we are in one of the hardest sports divisions in Massachusetts" and "we proudly triumphed against our big rivals - Acton Boxborough." Both of these are a matter of opinion. Trying to reference Poe, I completely agree with some statements he made. Some things Poe stated were that there was this major misconception that because the work at Wikipedia is voluntary - it would therefore be rushed. Its amazing to see how much time goes into these posts. Even for a small-suburban town highschool, there was a lot of information. I think this goes back to my idea that there is this immense sense of accomplishment for the common people like us to actually help create, edit, change this massive holder of knowledge. Wikipedia is somehow like Slashdot in terms of a self-regulating, thriving community. Just like the rules explained in Slashdot, where the posts with the most karma will get more viewership, at Wikipedia the edits with the most reliable/helpful information will have be in many ways safe. This can also be explained in terms of feedback. If you edit a page on Wiki, and it shifts the "balance" of the page (by writing something irrelevant) most likely, the page will be re-edited to bring it back to balance. Negative Feedback! Also in terms of rules/regulations on sites such as Slashdot, I was surprised to find all these prior rules Wales had set up for his site. I think its necessary for sites that give people so much freedom.
|
|
|
Post by ndesai on Jul 14, 2011 8:54:49 GMT -5
I've always found that editing wikis and user generate content sites are extremely useful. I've been a mod on multiple wikis for various communities and an active participant in many more. With all my years as an internet dweller, I do have to say that wikis are the most useful websites on the internet, mostly due to their bottom-up nature. I believe that wikis are consistent with poe's description. More or less anyone can edit a page, and mistakes will continually be corrected until they are correct. I think that wikis are similar to slashdot, but mainly in the fact that articles or stories continually go through feedback loops. In wikis, articles go through feedback loops of user editting until the article is completely updated. However, on slashdot, articles simply go through feedback loops of comments and discussion. On a wiki, you get a final product that can be presented as a result of discussion and the feedback loop. But on slashdot, the article is only bumped to the top, and those who get involved in the discussion are the only ones who reap the benefits. I've actually never had any experience with other wikis. What wikis are you mods of? It seems whenever someone says wiki now they just instantly think right back to wikipedia, but I bet there are a lot of thriving communities out there too.
|
|