What is your reaction to this video? What do you agree/disagree with? What are some things you learned from it? Are any questions arising from this for you?
“Truth According…” notes
- Are we ready for the tech saavy age?
- Maybe we need to slow down? (maybe we need to be more critical of our sources of information)? Who are the experts? Who are the amateurs? When do we need to make sure who provided the information?—See Mike’s and Dan’s and Maria’s comment (values wiki info)
- How big will Wiki get? Can it be stopped?
- Perhaps there needs to be better configuration and classification of information. What sort of re-structuring could improve the issue at hand? Is Wikipedia hampered by the fact that it is taking on such copious information?
- Is Wiki a good place to start research (basic)?--verify its statements.
- Is there is room for both camps of thought?
16 comments:
I thought the video was very provoking. I agree that we are about to enter a very tech savy age and i can't help but wonder are we ready? Are we adapting to quick and forgetting what life is with out the net? I think we need to try and slow it down so that we may keep what little humanity we have left with out sacrificing it to the god of silicon.
I believe that this video was very interesting. Some things i learned from this video were that if the internet were described as 24 hours, we only have discovered 30 minutes of it. I didnt like how they were talking about editing he information. I dont think it is fair that anyone who wants to put their two cents in can. I think that you need to have an extensive background in the field before you are even allowed to touch the web page. overall i learned a lot from this video.
I totally agree with this video. Whats the point of spending so many years in college getting learning journalism or film and then some kid can go and have just as much respect as you. There is not point for anyone to go get a degree if a person can just do that. I learned not to use wikipedia for anything I need to know the truth about, even the co-founder admitted that and a wikipedia staff member.A question I have that arises form this is, how big will wikipedia get? and can it ever be stopped?
Several points can be gleaned from the video we just saw
Is academia scared out of its mind and trying to defend its reason for being
Or is academia correct in that a democratic truth is subject to "sheep mentality"
Is knowledge only true if it comes from a vested expert
or is the process of vesting an expert make them to indoctrinated to be pure in thought
Does Web 2.0 have an ultimate finally in information collapse or information inspiration
Would the free presence of information cause those who are involved to become inspired to "expertise" there field of interest
Or do we have to wait for the system to fall so as to "start a new game of tetris having learned the mistakes of the last one" and in doing so do we end up better after the information collapse.
Lots of questions, no good answers...or is the answer somewhere in the colored region between all the black and white inverses proposed here?
The video I guess was informative in a way. No one, not even the founders tried to deny the fact that everything on the site can not always be trusted as reliable. I agree that it isn't the best place to find facts necessarily because anyone can go on and add their opinions, etc. However, on the other hand it is kind of nice for people all over the world to be able to their knowledge.
There really aren't any questions that come to mind due to the video. I already knew ahead of time that Wikipedia isn't my first choice when I really need to know the proven truth, but I 'll admit that I have used it for one thing or another in the past.
Overall I found the video interesting because I had no idea that Wikipedia started out so small, and now is so widely used in many different languages. Although people tell me not to look at Wikipedia for information I still have found a good majority of information on Wikipedia that seems credible. I still think Wikipedia can be useful for finding general information.
I thought that the video on wikipedia was very informal. I liked most of the information that was presented. If i had to choose a side i would have chose the british gentleman in the glasses, that believes that we are only a "half hour into a 24 hr day of technology". I believe that every person out there has a type of "knowledge", and should have every right to put it out there. You should not have to be an expert to know something in a particular field. I personally learned that there is a lot more information out there in the world, then i previously thought. Knowledge will forever be expanding and that is very cool to me. the only question that i have about the video is who is right? Will the experts take over, and will we have the absolute need for expertise? Or will we keep the new web 2.0 information wave going? Only time will tell...
My reaction to this video is that I think people are over reacting about the whole wikipedia website. It may not be a valid site for research papers, but it's not like it's totally wrong about everything and for people to be so offended by it to say that it should be removed is just an over-reaction. I agree that it isn't a valid website to write a paper off of, but I also agree with the fact that if you just want some quick facts or information about a subject it's a good place to go. I learned that wikipedia is basically just a big discussion board among people and that it is being edited a million times a day.
I just wonder if wikipedia will ever be a creditable site for papers, or if it'll always just be an open website for anyone and everyone to edit and change.
I don't really have a reaction. In high school our teachers used to give us a huge lecture about using wikipedia. They didn't like it because it wasn't a good source and they believed that the information was mostly not true since anyone could write on it. In my opinion I kinda like wikipedia. Whenever I use it, I use it for stupid that doesn't really matter. For school research, I try to stay away from it because of what my other teachers had said about it and because i don't know if I can rely on the information from the website on major issues that i would need for a project.
I am perplexed by arguments coming from the Macha camp, that the knowledge of amatuers is as valuable as experts. Certainly as Macha said, amatuers or people without degrees have insights and knowledge about culture and life, but culture and life are not the only categories on wikipedia or the internet. I argue there needs to be sorting and classification of "knowledge", explicit reminders of who is contributing the information at hand on the page.
I thought edits were subject to the editor's approval. Can one person even keep up with all that?
I feel that the video showed great arguments for and against Wikipedia and the Web 2.0 age. Keen's opinion on web 2.0 was especially interesting, because I identified with his views somewhat but maybe not to his extremes. He made the argument that professionals should be on top of the information being produced on the internet. This is happening today on a wide basis on sites like CNN.COM and other news sites. But then he said that Experts and Professionals are produced by gathering knowledge and sifting through it and experiencing which web 2.0 allows students, teachers, and people in general to do. Not only that but web 2.0 seems like a huge social experiment which is widely untapped. Even though the arguments were very well thought out on both sides, there was a time when the arguments were more like childish opinions. The "experts" expressions seemed to hint at some sort of deep feud or something and it actually made them seem unprofessional at times.
My reaction to the video is that people should have the power of the truth. The internet is an amazing tool that is still so new to everyone. I agree with the two guys who talked before about how the internet, wikis, and blogs are a good thing. Some of the things i learned from this video is how Wikipedia was made and that it is edited every second of the day. One question I have is that if Wikipedia is edited every second then why isn't it a good source? yes people can change and add to it but most of it is valuable information. Some wrong stuff may slip the eyes of the editors but the majority is useful. I believe it is a good and useful site.
After watching this video I feel that we are in a new internet age and that it is a great one. What could possibly be better then having the choice to voice your opinions and spread your ideas through blogs and emails and all kinds of other things. I believe that Wikipedia has it right. Sure sometimes it may not be the most accurate sight, but it is a great sight to start your research because from of the basic info that you can receive from it. This basic information can help you develop a game plan for the rest of whatever you are trying to accomplish be it a paper, speech, or whatever. Through this video I also learned that this is really the second big boom for the internet and that as technology continues to advance so will the internet making it even more personalized and user-friendly.
My initial reaction from the video was to side with the web 2.0 supporters, but every situation is different. If I were writing a research paper, I would not use wikipedia because I could take incorrect information and put it in my paper.
Other than formal research, I often look on the internet to find information for my personal knowledge. In my opinion, wikipedia is a great place to get the information for this purpose.
My reaction to the video is it was very informational about why you wouldn't use wikipedia as a main source. I agree with the co-founder Wales. With wikipedia it gives people a chance to express their feelings on every subject known to man. The downfall is that no one person can have their opinion stand for long because anyone can change it.
Post a Comment