The concept of proper citations and appropriate bibliographies is something that will never go away for any form of non-fictional writing (or fictional in some cases). I remember in my high school and university days, understanding and fulfilling the works cited format was something everyone needed to do.
For the past few years something has been created that has brought up debate for academia professionals and writers: Wikipedia. I will not go into an introduction about what Wikipedia is because I know everyone who has ready my site has probably visited Wikipedia on more than one occasion. The revolutionary thought behind this site is that anyone and everyone can contribute and edit entries onto it.
Breakthrough? Yes. The main downfall of this idea is that it creates a sense of discredit, according to scholars and professors. Their thought is that Joe Schmoe can log in and write what he thinks is the truth and then everyone will read that and take it in. There could be a Tucker T. Washington, from Smalltown, Alabama, who dislikes John Kerry and therefore logs onto Wikipedia and edits the entry about Kerry and says he is a pansy and lost his virginity to a head of lettuce. Some high school student will then write that in his politics paper. And many problems will arise.
I remember when Eric and I lived together, he would mention that Wikipedia was a constant debate amongst his fellow faculty members on whether or not they would allow students use it for providing information on essays. It came down to individual decisions; simply, it was up to you to decide if you want your students to use it.
My friend’s sister told me that she read an article that said that 75% of everything on Wikipedia was bullshit; of course, she wasn’t able to provide the source of the article. I asked if she read that on Wikipedia; she gave me dirty look.
Aside from the idea that everything on the site can be challenged, some conservatives believe that Wikipedia is too liberal. Yes, the site that defines true democracy, that is, anyone can contribute to this overwhelming source of information, is too liberal. So, conservatives have made conservapedia.com, which is too serve as the true source of knowledge. One can be enlightened or one can be amused by reading this site. I will allow you to decide. Here is an excerpt from the entry on George W. Bush and the topic of Economic Issues:
“Though the liberal media continues to disparage Bush's handling of the economy, they often neglect to report the many aspects of the economy that Bush has improved. For example, during his term Exxon Mobil has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well. This is due to changes in the stock market that lead to a record high in 2006. Corporations show profits growing by double digits growth.”
And on Family, the writer of the Bush entry wrote:
“George W. Bush is a member of the United Methodist Church, and many people feel that George W. Bush's faith is sincere and profound. The Faith of George W. Bush, a non-political book by author Stephen Strang, made the New York Times best-sellers list.”
Of course, the page doesn’t layout that the Faith of George W. Bush was published the same year as Fahrenheit 9/11 and a documentary was made of it and released the same week as Moore’s film was released for rent.
Going back to Wikipedia, many people realize that its credibility may be open to debate and its credibility can be unsteady. Well, the university I work for has created a program (via the computer engineering department) that can track its trustworthiness. Basically it tracks entries by who wrote them and then monitors how many edits it encounters. So, the less edits the more credibility that contributor has, and the more edits, than, obviously, the lesser credit you obtain. The program then does color-coding based on the hits the site receives, and the amount of changes involved.
So, now it may seem that Wikipedia could develop reputation. And the reason I say this is because this weekend I read this article about Wikipedia being edited by some notable sources. The Independent wrote:
“The chance to rewrite history in flattering and uncritical terms has proved too much of a temptation for scores of multinational companies, political parties and well-known organisations across the world.
If a misdemeanour from a politician's colourful past becomes an inconvenient fact at election time then why not just strike it from the Wikipedia record? Or if a public company is embarking on a sensitive takeover why should its investors know of the target business's human rights abuses?”
The article unravels that a website has the capabilities of screening all the editorial changes on Wikipedia and can trace it back to their original sources. Many of these sources were the CIA, FBI, churches, and corporations. Here is a brief list of what this new site found:
Exxon Mobil and the giant oil slick
An IP address that belongs to ExxonMobil, the oil giant, is linked to sweeping changes to an entry on the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989. An allegation that the company "has not yet paid the $5 billion in spill damages it owes to the 32,000 Alaskan fishermen" was replaced with references to the funds the company has paid out.
The Republican Party and Iraq
The Republican Party edited Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party entry so it made it clear that the US-led invasion was not a "US-led occupation" but a "US-led liberation."
The CIA and casualties of war
A computer with a CIA IP address was used to change a graphic on casualties of the Iraq war by adding the warning that many of the figures were estimated and not broken down by class. Another entry on former CIA chief William Colby was edited to expand his cv.
Diebold and the dubious voting machines
Voting-machine company Diebold apparently excised long paragraphs detailing the US security industry's concerns over the integrity of their voting machines, and information about the company's chief executive's fundraising for President Bush. The text, deleted in November 2005, was very rapidly restored by another Wikipedia contributor, who advised the anonymous editor, "Please stop removing content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism."
The Israeli government and the West Bank wall
A computer linked to the Israeli government twice tried to delete an entire article about the West Bank wall that was critical of the policy. An edit from the same address also modified the entry for Hizbollah describing all its operations as being "mostly military in nature".
It seems that Wikipedia may hold more power than one thinks, Oh, 75% of Wikipedia is pure bullshit. Apparently that is true now since many powerful entities are erasing content as we speak to better themselves and those they represent.
For the past few years something has been created that has brought up debate for academia professionals and writers: Wikipedia. I will not go into an introduction about what Wikipedia is because I know everyone who has ready my site has probably visited Wikipedia on more than one occasion. The revolutionary thought behind this site is that anyone and everyone can contribute and edit entries onto it.
Breakthrough? Yes. The main downfall of this idea is that it creates a sense of discredit, according to scholars and professors. Their thought is that Joe Schmoe can log in and write what he thinks is the truth and then everyone will read that and take it in. There could be a Tucker T. Washington, from Smalltown, Alabama, who dislikes John Kerry and therefore logs onto Wikipedia and edits the entry about Kerry and says he is a pansy and lost his virginity to a head of lettuce. Some high school student will then write that in his politics paper. And many problems will arise.
I remember when Eric and I lived together, he would mention that Wikipedia was a constant debate amongst his fellow faculty members on whether or not they would allow students use it for providing information on essays. It came down to individual decisions; simply, it was up to you to decide if you want your students to use it.
My friend’s sister told me that she read an article that said that 75% of everything on Wikipedia was bullshit; of course, she wasn’t able to provide the source of the article. I asked if she read that on Wikipedia; she gave me dirty look.
Aside from the idea that everything on the site can be challenged, some conservatives believe that Wikipedia is too liberal. Yes, the site that defines true democracy, that is, anyone can contribute to this overwhelming source of information, is too liberal. So, conservatives have made conservapedia.com, which is too serve as the true source of knowledge. One can be enlightened or one can be amused by reading this site. I will allow you to decide. Here is an excerpt from the entry on George W. Bush and the topic of Economic Issues:
“Though the liberal media continues to disparage Bush's handling of the economy, they often neglect to report the many aspects of the economy that Bush has improved. For example, during his term Exxon Mobil has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well. This is due to changes in the stock market that lead to a record high in 2006. Corporations show profits growing by double digits growth.”
And on Family, the writer of the Bush entry wrote:
“George W. Bush is a member of the United Methodist Church, and many people feel that George W. Bush's faith is sincere and profound. The Faith of George W. Bush, a non-political book by author Stephen Strang, made the New York Times best-sellers list.”
Of course, the page doesn’t layout that the Faith of George W. Bush was published the same year as Fahrenheit 9/11 and a documentary was made of it and released the same week as Moore’s film was released for rent.
Going back to Wikipedia, many people realize that its credibility may be open to debate and its credibility can be unsteady. Well, the university I work for has created a program (via the computer engineering department) that can track its trustworthiness. Basically it tracks entries by who wrote them and then monitors how many edits it encounters. So, the less edits the more credibility that contributor has, and the more edits, than, obviously, the lesser credit you obtain. The program then does color-coding based on the hits the site receives, and the amount of changes involved.
So, now it may seem that Wikipedia could develop reputation. And the reason I say this is because this weekend I read this article about Wikipedia being edited by some notable sources. The Independent wrote:
“The chance to rewrite history in flattering and uncritical terms has proved too much of a temptation for scores of multinational companies, political parties and well-known organisations across the world.
If a misdemeanour from a politician's colourful past becomes an inconvenient fact at election time then why not just strike it from the Wikipedia record? Or if a public company is embarking on a sensitive takeover why should its investors know of the target business's human rights abuses?”
The article unravels that a website has the capabilities of screening all the editorial changes on Wikipedia and can trace it back to their original sources. Many of these sources were the CIA, FBI, churches, and corporations. Here is a brief list of what this new site found:
Exxon Mobil and the giant oil slick
An IP address that belongs to ExxonMobil, the oil giant, is linked to sweeping changes to an entry on the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989. An allegation that the company "has not yet paid the $5 billion in spill damages it owes to the 32,000 Alaskan fishermen" was replaced with references to the funds the company has paid out.
The Republican Party and Iraq
The Republican Party edited Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party entry so it made it clear that the US-led invasion was not a "US-led occupation" but a "US-led liberation."
The CIA and casualties of war
A computer with a CIA IP address was used to change a graphic on casualties of the Iraq war by adding the warning that many of the figures were estimated and not broken down by class. Another entry on former CIA chief William Colby was edited to expand his cv.
Diebold and the dubious voting machines
Voting-machine company Diebold apparently excised long paragraphs detailing the US security industry's concerns over the integrity of their voting machines, and information about the company's chief executive's fundraising for President Bush. The text, deleted in November 2005, was very rapidly restored by another Wikipedia contributor, who advised the anonymous editor, "Please stop removing content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism."
The Israeli government and the West Bank wall
A computer linked to the Israeli government twice tried to delete an entire article about the West Bank wall that was critical of the policy. An edit from the same address also modified the entry for Hizbollah describing all its operations as being "mostly military in nature".
It seems that Wikipedia may hold more power than one thinks, Oh, 75% of Wikipedia is pure bullshit. Apparently that is true now since many powerful entities are erasing content as we speak to better themselves and those they represent.
No comments:
Post a Comment