WIKIPEDIA

Wikipedia: What’s the Deal?

While being virtually one of the largest and most vast databases of information, it has been debated on how reliable Wikipedia actually is. Since it is an interactive encyclopaedia, meaning people can contribute to it, calls into question how valid the information is. Many case studies have been made which point out errors in the validity of information posted on Wikipedia, yet in some ways these studies make note that perhaps Wikipedia isn’t as unreliable as some people claim it to be. In which ways are Wikipedia legitimate and how can one use it properly?
Wikipedia is a great tool because its information is so vast. One can research just about anything whether it be topics in pop culture, science, history, etc. To date there are close to 4 million entries. 3.7 million articles have been added since Wikipedia’s creation in 2001 with 200 available languages to read from. It consists of 45,000 registered users, not including people who simply visit the site but are not registered. On average there are 1,500 articles added daily and it is the 37th most visited website in the world. Knowing the extent of information that Wikipedia holds it is hard to avoid it when beginning research on a topic seeing as just about everything is available.
It is because Wikipedia is interactive that its validity is called into question. When anyone-meaning people who are not qualified professionals in a certain field of research-is able to contribute to the content of an encyclopaedia, there are limited restrictions on what information can be posted whether valid or non-valid. In December of 2005, the magazine Nature conducted a study comparing Wikipedia to the well known and very reputable Encyclopaedia Britannica. Surprisingly when comparing errors the results were very close, Wikipedia being only slightly less accurate than Britannica. Nature states that in one certain case; “Reviewers found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica respectively.”
There are certain instances of very controversial edits being made to Wikipedia articles. One includes an edit by a random registered user who claimed that a former assistant to US Senator Robert Kennedy was involved in his assassination. Another involved podcasting engineer Adam Curry editing information on the topic of podcasting, erasing references to his competitor’s work. Although controversial, on topics as wide spread as these it is only a short amount of time until attention is called to it and the proper adjustments are made. The user who claimed unverified information about Senator Kennedy was revealed through an IP search, and the references to the podcasters were re-added, although Mr. Curry claimed in his defence that he was merely making the article more accurate, not attempting to benefit himself.
Wikipedia claims that they have increased security measures to help restrict the amount of invalid information that is added to the site by making the only qualified writers and editors registered users. However, this does not mean much as all it requires to become a registered user is a username and password. No email address or personal information is required, so basically anyone can become an editor and still have their identity guarded. There have been some cases of US Congress members joining Wikipedia to edit information on articles about themselves. This was also discovered through IP tracking, and although it was decided that all the information added was relevant, it still calls into question the ethical nature of the ability to do this.
It is because there is such a vast amount of information on Wikipedia that it is hard to take a solid stand point on it. Many widely researched topics have been finely combed and thus declared very accurate, whereas others can be seen as shockingly inaccurate. Robert McHenry, a former editor for Encyclopaedia Britannica, stated on an article about Alexander Hamilton that its quality was “what might be expected of a high school student.” The beauty of Wikipedia is that is so fast growing, basically the moment news is created it can be learned about and expanded upon through Wikipedia. Before the 21st century there was no database that could educate people on the vast amount of information that existed, but through the use of an interactive encyclopaedia this became possible. However the problems remain. Better and more efficient editors are needed to constantly keep in check the quality and accuracy of information that is being produced, so that users can have both vast and accurate information.
When using Wikipedia to research one must be very careful. Since Wikipedia does to some extent comb the information that is posted, information on very reputable and popular topics are normally accurate for the most part. However as previously mentioned this may not always be the case, and it is always a good idea to double check information from Wikipedia with that of a scholarly article or published work. Additionally, with topics that are very unpopular to the public or less known, there is a great chance that the information is flawed because such a small percentage of the population is editing it or even reading it. Examples of this may be underground local bands or extremely unpopular movies. Seeing as one might not typically being doing a research project on a topic like this, however, it is not risky in terms of citing information incorrectly. You may simply be given the wrong impression on a topic that is not well known.
Overall if one chooses to use Wikipedia it should be done very carefully. Generally it should serve not much more than a starting point in a research project if one can safely assume the information is valid. It is possible that well into the future professional teams can help to make the validity of Wikipedia much greater, making it both a speedy and accurate database. However as of the present moment, it should be used with extreme caution if one chooses to use it at all.

Works Cited

Scholarly Journals:
Black, Erik W. "Wikipedia and Academic Peer Review: Wikipedia as a Recognised Medium for Scholarly Publication?" Online Information Review (2008). 30 May 2008 .

Domingus, Marlon. "OAI, Google Scholar and Wikipedia are the Answers, But What is the Question?" E-Lis (2005). 30 May 2008 .

Halavais, Alexander, and Derek Lackaff. "An Analysis of Topical Coverage of Wikipedia." The Journal of Computer Mediated Communication (2008). 30 May 2008 .

Rosenzweig, Roy. "Can History Be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past." The Journal of American History (2006). 30 May 2008 .Rosenzweig, Roy. "Can History Be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past." The Journal of American History (2006). 30 May 2008 .

Websites
Giles, Jim. "Special Report Internet Encyclopaedias Go Head to Head." Nature. 2007. 30 May 2008 .

Goodin, Dan. "'Natures': Wikipedia is Accurate." USA Today. 14 Dec. 2005. 30 May 2008 .

Hoo, Vanessa. "How Accurate is Wikipedia?" Versus Online. 2 Jan. 2006. 30 May 2008 .

Sack, Brian. "More Accurate Wikipedia Warnings." Cracked.Com. 2007. 30 May 2008 .Sack, Brian. "More Accurate Wikipedia Warnings." Cracked.Com. 2007. 30 May 2008 .

Terdiman, Daniel. "Study: Wikipedia as Accurate as Britannica." CNET News. 30 May 2008 .Terdiman, Daniel. "Study: Wikipedia as Accurate as Britannica." CNET News. 30 May 2008 .

"Wikipedia-How Accurate is the Online Encyclopedia?" Mail Online. 10 Mar. 2007. 30 May 2008 .

WIKIPEDIA

3D Worlds

3D worlds can definitely make an impact and change the way we experience internet socialising. In a 3D world it gives the effect of communicating with another person on a more human level, that is to say, not as restricted by technology as we used to be. I personally have no interests in these type of Second Life worlds. Basic chat is enough for me to successfully keep in touch with friends and family and I feel no need to do this in a 3D type world. However I can see how it may be an enjoyable hobby for some people to create a more life-like experience over the internet, and its a pretty cool idea in itself.

Using Microsoft Word

These assignments were very easy for the most part. I had no trouble completing the basic tasks as these are skills that I have been using for quite some time now. The first advanced exercise was a bit more confusing, but its not something I feel I will ever use again. I found it pointless to edit my document in such a way, as I can just insert and delete things without using track changes. I couldn't quite complete the final advanced task. After I hit "mail merge" there were no prompts on the left as the instructions indicated. However I feel that I only need Microsoft Word to complete very simple tasks and that I have enough practice at it to be successful with it now and in the future.

WIKIPEDIA

Wikipedia can be a very reliable and unreliable source depending on the article you read. When researching topics that I am familiar with, this is what I had to report.

"Simsbury, CT"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simsbury

Simsbury is my hometown in the United States. I decided to research that first because, living their my entire life, I know much about. Most of what the article had to say about the history seemed fairly accurate. All the information about its settlement is true for the most part, but some of the details listed have been debated on whether they are entirely true. For instance it reports that the original settlers left because of all the surrounding Native Americans, and that when they returned the entire city had been burned down to the ground. When they came back, they apparently could not find the exact location because there were no more landmarks. From my understanding of Simsbury's history, it seems that this has been debated. However much of the facts that the articles give are directly cited from census and official goverment information. In addition, while it gave much information it left some things out that I could contribute. For instance under "Annual Events" it lists a few but I can think of more annual fests that are not included. However, overall it is a very accurate article with only a few possible faults.

"The Beatles"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_beatles

I chose to research my second topic on the band The Beatles because they are one of my all time favorite bands. This article seemed extremely accurate. It is no surprise because, a topic that is so widespread and popular as The Beatles is bound to be under a lot of scrutiny and checked for accuracy. I think when it comes to less popular or less known topics is when there are bound to be more errors. Everything about this article seemed accurate as far as I could tell, from the band's history, studio recordings, influences, controversies, etc. There were solid facts to back the article and even direct quotes from band memebers themselves. I personally could not think of anything to change about this article and I believe it to be accurate as well as interesting.

Walter Benjamin-"Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction"

Yes. Indeed. According to Walter Benjamin, contemporary digital media can be said to have lost a true sense of artistic uniqueness. Benjamin believed that art made by skilled professionals was special because it had a true sense of the time and place that it was created. The original piece in itself held a history to it that included countless circumstances which led to its creation.
Benjamin argues that a photo shopped image, for example, loses all artistic value because it is merely an image produced by a machine that virtually anyone could create. It loses the requirement of skill and devotion from the artist and is basically just a creation of technology rather than human talent.
Digital things according to Benjamin lose the sense of "aura." He uses this term to describe a sense of profound appreciation for something that can only be triggered by a true and original piece of art. Benjamin believes that anything reproduced or altered mechanically loses this sense of originality, creativity, and overall uniqueness, and therefore holds no true "aura."
I personally do not fully agree with Walter Benjamin's view on art losing value in the digital age. Though it some ways this is true, for example simply copying or slightly altering some type of art digitally might cheapen it, I feel that there can also be exceptions. I believe an artist can create a totally unique and original piece of art, whether it be visual, audio, etc., through the means of digital technology while keeping it strictly through the forces of his/her own creativity. Just because technology can aid in art doesn't necessarily mean that the media in itself completely depreciates its value or sense of aura.

Scavenger Hunt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1. Who was the creator of the infamous "lovebug" computer virus?

Onel de Guzman

2. Who invented the paper clip?

Johaan Valer

3. How did the Ebola virus get its name?

Ebola River

4. What country had the largest recorded earthquake?

Chile

5. In computer memory/storage terms, how many kilobytes in a terabyte?

1,073,741,824

6. Who is the creator of email?

Ray Tomlinson

7. What is the storm worm, and how many computers are infected by it?

Trojan virus working against Windows.

8. If you wanted to contact the prime minister of australia directly,
what is the most efficient way?

email

9. Which Brisbane-based punk band is Stephen Stockwell (Head of the School
of Arts) a member of?

The Black Assasains

10. What does the term "Web 2.0" mean in your own words?

A more effective and proficient way of using the web and networking.






-Search engines rank the stuff they find on the internet by judging the quality of the website and the popularity of it. For instance if one were to search "file sharing," a more popular than non-popular file sharing website would come up. By making your search very title specific you can get a more accurate result of what you are trying to find. Using quotations in your search and minimizing the amount of unnecessary words plays a key role in reducing non-useful information. Athough I find wikipedia and google to be the best tools, search engines such as Yahoo and AskJeeves work well also. Whenever possible, it can be a great help to use actual library databases to find scholarly articles for much more specific and in-depth research.