|
Post by gigglegutgates on Jul 14, 2011 9:12:22 GMT -5
Upon registering for an account and and editing a page, I found it very simple to do. I've never edited something, or added to a cite, but I can imagine that others have somewhat more strict securities? I think that the concept is great. It's user generated and allows for those who are passionate about creating a credible cite dedicate their time to provide input. However, this also goes to show how easily that credibility can be destroyed. Here in lies an issue of ethics. Is it ethical to add or edit something that you're not qualified to write about for this specific cite? It's easily done, but does that make it write? Wikipedia has a lot of features that I was unaware of. I'll call them user features. You can "talk" and "contribute" and really customize your space and edit whatever you'd like. You can create a watch list and edit your preferences. The Wikimedia Foundation was interesting. I'd like to discuss what that means about a cite. I think it adds credibility and might just be a PR tool, but it shows that Wikipedia does attempt to make their cite fairly useful. But to what extent?
|
|
wzsun
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by wzsun on Jul 14, 2011 9:27:58 GMT -5
In what ways is Wikipedia like Slashdot? What systems of feedback are needed for Wikipedia's success? Apply Steven Johnson's ideas in "Listening to Feedback" to Poe's discussion of collaborative knowledge. Feel free to use your experience with wikis in your response.
It was difficult at first for me to find an article that wasn't locked. Usually the ones that I was most knowledgeable, were locked. So I went to find a newer subject like Google+. I didn't know everything about it but I contributed what I knew and it's interesting to note that I felt a little concerned as to whether my information was 100% correct because anyone can see it. For example I edited one of the features within Google+ called Circles. Like mentioned by my fellow peers I do believe it fits Poe's description, it doesn't take much time and it was an enjoyable experience to know that I contributed to something.
Wikipedia is like slash dot in that it is a community driven site. Anybody in the world who may or may not be knowledgeable in the subject can add their two cents. However there is no feed back system. In that people don't directly receive feedback back on what they edited. However that seems rather difficult to implement and unwise. They have a solid system where they can lock pages and re-edit the page so everything is correct. Whilst I believe that listening to feed back is important, it's very difficult to implement such a thing to Wikipedia. I feel like Wikipedia is trying to be neutral in all topics and like really trying to present arguments but just facts, and in that sense I don't feel like feed back is that important. Also I think they have nailed down the collaborative knowledge down as best as the can at the current time. For example there are millions of people who visit Wikipedia, but only those who have an incentive to contribute something will contribute something. We can assume that these people are either spammers or people who know information and will contribute something. But because there are other people who are dedicated to the site, any wrong information can be corrected immediately. From just a brief overview of the site on a members perspective i believe there is a section where Johnson's ideas meets Poe's. I think this is called the MyTalk feature where people can call you out on what you wrote. So I feel like the basically structure of success has been implemented into Wikipedia.
|
|
|
Post by hdolphin411 on Jul 14, 2011 9:48:59 GMT -5
The process of editing a page on wikipedia was actually much easier than I expected it to be. When it says anybody can edit a wiki page, it really means ANYBODY. It took me about two minutes to actually edit the page and click save. The fact that wiki’s are open to the public and are shared around the world does make them impossible to cite, which I especially realize now because I couldn’t leave a source for my added information, I just knew it from years of experience. The process was just like Poe described it in “The Hive”. Just as Sanger wrote when he developed Wikipedia, “go there and add a little article. It will take all of five or ten minutes.” The wikipedia website is a quick way to add information about a topic for the world to see.
I don’t see a huge relation between Wikipedia and Slashdot except for the fact that they both use the feedback system. Slashdot uses negative and positive feedback together to create a site with reasonable information that geeks and others alike will find useful or interesting. Wikipedia has this same sort of feedback system. Users partake in the positive feedback by adding information they deem as valuable or significant and then the moderators are the negative feedback machines as they decide what is “encyclopedic” and what is “not encyclopedic.” If the added information or page is encyclopedic, it is kept, and if it doesn’t meet the standards or is not important, then it is deleted. In “Listening to Feedback,” Johnson says that after a point, the system begins running itself. I believe that this is how Wikipedia has survived this long decade. The system of adding relevant information and deleting insignificant information has kept the wiki running by itself.
|
|
|
Post by elm318 on Jul 14, 2011 13:32:41 GMT -5
@ben Yedwabnik I agree that it was difficult to put information on the Wiki that wasn't already there. I edited the Women's Lacrosse Wikipedia page. I know a lot about the sport and even though there wasn't very much information on the site it was hard for me to think of something that I could add to make it better. I was also kind of afraid to put something that other viewers might feel is unhelpful or unworthy of being on the Wiki.
|
|
|
Post by nickisonlyme on Jul 14, 2011 14:59:18 GMT -5
I have had the opportunity before to edit an article on Wikipedia, so I cannot justifiably say it was a surprise that it was so easy to edit the website. What I can say is that revisions are just as easy to make, if not easier. Wikipedia's organized and tidy layout carries over into its syntax. Although the covert coding that does the behind-the-scenes work, structuring the website and arranging the text, it does not interfere with a users ability to correct or alter information. Poe's assertion that we can afford to make a simple correction is true. It takes a minimal amount of time and effort, and with such power you might find yourself discovering other discrepancies and taking the liberty of fixing them.
Both Wikipedia and Slashdot have similar features, most notably there dedicated and active community members. Each site has a user-base motivated by self-interest to upholding a standard that they have setup for themselves. This standard is greatly reflected in the information provided on the website. Likewise, members can readily access a variety of features and utilities such as portals, discussion boards, ect. to better their online experience. Both websites' goals are to offer valid and precise information on any topi c imaginable, but this is where they differ. While Slashdot is has a 'work-in-progress layout', Wikipedia has adopted a 'final product' efficiency about it. If you examine a thread on Slashdot, you will notice the schedule of posts that may eventually come to a conclusion, whereas in the online encyclopedia, pages are continually edited and scrutinized anonymously until it is nearly or completely accurate. But what Wikipedia does not show visitors to the website is a record of how the page has changed, simply what it has become.
|
|
|
Post by mskolnick03 on Jul 14, 2011 21:07:11 GMT -5
Adding to Wikipedia was more simple than I thought it would be. The hardest thing for me to do was decide on a topic that I felt I would be experienced enough on to post information on. It seems a little strange that anyone can post anything. Still, the site remains in tact and there's plenty of useful and accurate information. This is definitely what Poe was describing. The balance of Wikipedia is achieved by the same people that post the original information when they go in and edit each other's work to make it as accurate as possible. The community is then self-regulating and stable.
@ben and wzsun, I definitely agree that there is more contact with the actual text posted on Wikipedia than feedback like on Slashdot. Instead of discussions, a person can just go in and edit another person's work. I think this works for Wikipedia, whereas the more discussion based approach works better with Slashdot. I think it depends on the website and what the community calls for in order to maintain that self-regulating community.
|
|