The world wide web has digitised information and converged the way we access information. We view newspapers online via a computer or on our mobile phones, and we look up information by searching a key word rather than flicking through an alphebetised encyclopedia. The internet provides us with a seemingly limitless source of information, and now, it also allows us to contribute to that information through blogs, wiki’s and other user-generated sites.
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedic data-base with users world-wide, it offers millions of articles in hundreds of languages. It is comparable to the grand encyclopedic volumes which once occupied the bookshelves of households the world over, but is much larger and taps into an infinite source of contributors. While similar in the aims of a physical encyclopedia, that is, to provide a wealth of reference information on the widest range of topics possible, it greatly differs in its creation and delivery.
Wikipedia is a free source of information which is created by the people who use it, unlike traditional encyclopedias which are written and edited by professional experts. It is mainly because of this fact that Wikipedia faces criticism as to the reliability of its information, and as a result, is often not considered a trusted source of information for purposes of reference at higher educational levels. The pros and cons of Wikipedia are many and varied. A few of the strenghths and opportunities of the site include its accessibility, it’s virtual over pysical size, its ability to be revised and edited at no cost to the user, and that it is completely free to access. As it provides an opportunity for communal collaboration, it removes itself from the traditional heirarchial method o...
... middle of paper ...
...out of a new era and the world is increasingly becoming digital, it comes down to the fact that Wikipedia “taps an almost infinite wealth of talent, energy, and insight that far exceeds what Britannica’s closed model can muster”8 and through this, is on the route to offering a higher quality constantly improved encyclopedic online library.
Works Cited
Ayers, P., Matthews, C. & Yates, B. (2008). How Wikipedia Works. San Francisco: No Starch Press.
Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From production to produsage. New York: Peter Lang.
Reagle, J. M. Jnr. (2010). Good Faith Collaboration: The culture of Wikipedia. USA: MIT Press.
Tapscott, D. & Williams, A. D. (2006). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. London: Atlantic Books.
Vivian, J. (2011). The media of mass communication (10th ed.). New York: Pearson.
Sean Kamperman the author of “The Wikipedia Game: Boring, Pointless, or Neither” believes that wikipedia can be helpful with educational learning purposes. Wikipedia is known for plagiarism and fake information. People make Wikipedia have a bad reputation in schools especially in english classes. Wikipedia can be a source of entertainment and self improvement for some people. Some people might just research stuff on Wikipedia to find interesting articles. In “Wikihunt” many Wikipedia users have “discovered” a game of their own, this involves creativity so it brings out the creative qualities of people. Wikipedia is a educational game and it's also free it's convenient for people. The game “Wikihunt” involves two people in separate computers
As Wikipedia has become more and more popular with students, some professors have become increasingly concerned about the online, reader-produced encyclopedia. While plenty of professors have complained about the lack of accuracy or completeness of entries, and some have discouraged or tried to bar students from using it.
The Web. The Web. 14 April 2014. Kennedy, X.J. and Dana Gioai, eds.
The Internet gives us a seemingly endless supply of resources; we can search for information, communicate with others, or use it for our own personal work or pleasure. The Internet connects us to the rest of the evolving world, in all different countries around the world. With the ability to seek information on the Internet, we can gain knowledge about an endless supply of topics. For example, if someone wanted to learn how to plant a tree they can simply navigate to Google and type in “how to plant a tree.” Furthermore, thousands of pages will appear with step by step instructions demonstrating the process of planting a tree. This knowledge has made our society smarter because we can figure things out on our own, but at the same time save money; we do not have to pay someone else to tell us how to plant a tree. It can really benefit students in school because it allows u...
...owledge, to share it with everyone that is interested" and that secrecy “strikes at the very root of what science is, and what science is for” [14]. In this sense, the suppressive public policy interventions inherently contradict scientists’ objectives, namely the dispersal of productive knowledge. Despite decades of scientific publication, there is no evidence that terrorists or other groups have attempted to use publically available dual-use research to deploy biological weapons. At the same time, there is very real evidence that concerns about the dangers of dual-use research are slowing the progress of the life sciences. Proponents of restrictions on dual-use research have failed to show how their measures would actually improve security. Risk must be balanced against likelihood, and in the absence of a credible threat, research censorship should be reduced.
Badke (2008) begins his article reminding us that Wikipedia although controversial is still the online encyclopedia of choice by 36% of the United States population according to Pew Internet & American Life Project’s findings. (As quoted by Badke, para. 1)
He described in detail about the early days of Wikipedia, its challenges and finally overcoming those challenges. And he did not shy away to declare his delight over this unprecedented success of Wikipedia. “Wikipedia flourished while traditional, well-respected print publications, not least Encyclopedia Britannica, languished”, he
Wheeler, S., Yeomans, P., & Wheeler, D. (2008). The good, the bad and the wiki: Evaluatingstudent-generated content for collaborative learning. British Journal for Educational Technology, 39(6), 987-995.
Wikipedia recognizes that it would not be wise for someone to use this virtual encyclopedia as a source for any educational use or just wanting some information (“Not Authoritative” n.d.). Those who put in false information are more likely to be anonymous and because they are anonymous it causes complication for Wikipedia. Wikipedia have set rules for the users to “follow”, but those rules are obviously ignored, which results Wikipedia not having total control nor organization with the users. For example, if someone chose to do a research paper and chose an article from Wikipedia that has
Now that we are living in an ever changing world, technology is viewed as the most resourceful tool in keeping up with the pace. Without the use of technology, communication would be limited to using mail for delivery and encyclopedias for research. Although technology has improved the way we communicate and find information for research, the information is not always valid. Unfortunately, for those of us who use the internet for shopping, research, or reading articles of personal interest the information is not treated the same as a your magazine or book. While such literature is reviewed by an editorial staff, internet literature or information can be published by anyone. In order to reap the full benefit of having the use of technology for any purpose, there are five basic criteria’s one must keep in mind as an evaluating tool for deciding whether or not the particular website is a reliable source for information.
In the first paragraph, Jaron appeals to the pathos of the reader; he assumes that the reader is of the generation that has grown up in the digital age, thus they would agree that the most important aspect of the internet is the people who contribute to it. However, there is no reason to ever assume that. Some people may actually believe that user contribution detracts from what makes the internet a viable source of information. For example, if the internet were controlled by academia, it would most likely be a peer reviewed source of information. However, as it is, anyone can contribute information to the internet, which makes the internet not a reliable source for knowledge. We can see this in academia, which typically does not support the use of Wikipedia as an academic source, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that relies entirely on user contribution.
The Bibliographic Chain is a process whereby information proceeds through an individual’s imagination/mind to its final resting place which may be in the format of an encyclopaedia summary [1]. The Bibliographic Chain contains eleven progressive links which consists of: knowledge within human resources; information created by institutions; documents that are currently being worked on; unpublished studies and findings; periodicals; reports and monographs; services (indexing and abstracting); bibliographic lists and essays/reports; yearly reviews and prolific reports, books and encyclopaedic summaries [5].
Today is an era of information explosion. In the past few years, many newly invented technological devices and software are now tightly integrated with our everyday lives. Today, people can look up almost any kind of information, make friends, communicate with others, and express ourselves with the simple touch of a button on a device we usually keep within arm’s reach. “Widespread use of technology is changing the way we work, learn, and communicate – even the way we carry out our regular, daily activities.”(Seifer and Mihalynuk) These devices not only benefit our livelihoods and increase our happiness, but they are also integral in advancing education, technology, development, and, in general, human evolution. The children of today, who have been raised in this era of information explosion, will undoubtedly reap such benefits and, in turn, advance society towards a better generation.
At just a quarter of a century in governing regulations, listening to complains and making recommendations, while maintaining the standards of the laws of Jamaica as it is concerned with the media. There is one inevitable aspect the Broadcasting Commission has to continuously keep abreast with, and that is change.