GlobalStudentsOnline.Net

In chapter 7, Gillmor discusses, amongst other things, Wikipedia. The online encyclopedia and other “wikis” have pages of information that are created and updated by users. The users have unlimited access to edit any page. Gillmor discusses the problems of credibility in this site. Of course, we are all aware that if any person can edit a page, it is suspect as to who that person is and to what are their credentials. This was certainly the case during the beginning part of the decade. From a student’s perspective conducting research, at first, in high school, teachers tried to forbid using Wikipedia as any type of source. Then that perspective turned to being all right to use Wikipedia as an initial source, but it was never acceptable to quote it. This made a lot of sense and as Wikipedia grew to include extensive bibliographies. For more popular sites at first and now it seems many pages have comprehensive sources portions. This turned out to be useful for research because an examination of these sources are often much more traditionally credible and can be used in academic research. Only very recently have Wikipedia entries started to be accepted in some academia. Lynn even approves wiki sources. The fear is that there will be “vandals” who will intentionally corrupt the information in addition to non-credible authors. These problems have mostly been overcome. First, there are many people contributing and editing, which continually refines pages to provide the most accurate information. Those people are also citing their sources. Gillmor also says that vandals’ writing is quickly changed, which deters them from making the effort. I do not personally know if this is true. Gillmor also says that the articles are generally neutral in tone, something very absent from blogs for example. This seems to result from having the opportunity to neutralize each other until the only thing they can agree on is more or less the facts. This is then often accompanied by rounded opinions from every side. Over time, this is what has shaped into being regarded as a credible source. I still think Wikipedia is a good starting point for research, but should not be the end all, nor should any other source. In many ways, a balanced view of the facts of a topics accompanied by several opinions if it is controversial is much more beneficial than searching for opinions, which tend to have an agenda. In chapter 10, considerations of violating defamation law are discussed, for example. Wikipedia currently allows its uses’ access by the administrators and is testing a way to give this power over to the uses. Removal from the site, however, is very rare, which further shows that almost all people are contributing in good faith.

Tags: We the Media