Journalism Today Review

In my last post, I discussed journalism today with a significant reference to citizen journalism, and my view of the lack of credibility and verifiability with citizen journalism. Since then, I have given further thought to this issue. Little Fish commented: “it’s hard to control the authenticity of every piece of information on the Internet, but, if nobody does anything about it, we might destroy the future of citizen journalism until no one believe anything from the Internet.” I think that Little Fish raises a very good point. If we continue to lack seeking credibility and verifiability in citizen journalism, we will completely destroy the future of citizen journalism, and any of the progress we have already made in this issue. We do need to find new ways to be able to verify the information that is obtained from citizen journalism. Little Fish suggests that we start from our social networks, and I definitely agree that this is a great starting place considering how much time we spend on social networks. This brings forth the question of how this can be achieved. Although I cannot give a definite answer, I can suggest one way. In my COMM2F00 course, we are always told to reference our work. I think that Facebook and Twitter should integrate an easy method of some sort that would allow users to reference or cross-connect from the source that they obtained the information from in the first place. This is already somewhat evident as Facebook or Twitter users can tag users in their posts. I do think, however, that Facebook or Twitter could probably simplify or encourage this process more.

 In my previous post, I also wrote that in many ways you and I are very involved in citizen journalism even though we may not realize it. KK commented: “We all are journalists in our everyday life! Facebook is an excellent example where we post, like, share photos, videos and news of our lives.” Since we are actively involved in citizen journalism, even though we may not want to admit it, we have definite control of how citizen journalism plays itself out. If we try to add credibility to our everyday posts, then perhaps all users will soon be able to believe in citizen journalism more. We may not have a convenient way of doing this, but we should act in the good faith of helping develop citizen journalism. Taking the time to tag where we got the information from will help add a lot of verifiability and credibility to citizen journalism. In the case of citizen journalism, we the citizen journalists must be the change we want to see. 

Journalism Today

When you think of journalism today, what comes to your mind? Is it the travelling reporter who seeks to find the “truth”? Is it the person in Egypt using social media to gain support? Or, is it yourself that you see? Many would answer the question by stating it was themselves that they saw as journalism, which proves just how much the world has changed in the last couple of decades. The emergence of new social media opportunities has encouraged a wealth of participation in citizen journalism. Dictionary.com defines journalism as “the occupation of reporting, writing, editing, photographing, or broadcasting news”. How many examples can you think of where social media has supported that definition of journalism? Is it not true that we have many different platforms that allow us to report, write and then edit, post photos, or even broadcast audio or video files? Is it not true that hypothetically speaking you or I could create our own broadcast studio from our basements? The answer to all of these questions is yes. Hypothetically speaking, all of those scenarios are possible. These possibilities have enabled the term citizen journalism, where nonprofessionals, such as you and I, can report, write, edit, photograph and even broadcast just like the professionals.  Social media has enabled this possibility for all of us.  This was not always the case. According to Bruns and Highfield’s article Blogs, Twitter, and breaking news: The produsage of citizen journalism, “digital environments have changed substantially since the emergence of the first online citizen journalism projects in the late 1990s” (2012, p.20).  Social Media has truly risen in the last couple of years to allow us to be efficient and effective in citizen journalism. Several different platforms such blogging websites, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter have allowed us to instantly share every aspect that we encounter. In particular, I would like to point out Twitter and its unbelievably rapid way of spreading news. According to Hermida’s article TWEETS AND TRUTH: Journalism as a discipline of collaborative verification, “Twitter is affecting the way news is gathered, disseminated, and consumed” (2012, p.660) and I could not agree more with this statement. I still remember May 2^nd 2011, the day that Osama bin Laden, one of the world’s most wanted men, was captured and killed. Surprisingly, I found out through Twitter and my first reaction was “it cannot be true, it is most likely a rumor”. I find it rather humorous that this would be my initial reaction. I now ask myself whether my reaction would have been different if I saw those news through some other more reliable medium, and my answer is that I would have definitely believed in it more. This brings forth Hermida’s view that “the development of Twitter as a channel for breaking news and the use of material from the public in professionally edited publications poses a dilemma for a profession based on a discipline of verification” (2012, p.663). Verification of news is one of Twitter’s largest challenges especially due its sheer volume of Tweets. To repost or even favorite a Tweet is simple by pressing only one button. Furthermore, the website has no means for users to report incorrect news. This encourages the spread of incorrect news. Twitter’s simplistic approach to its interface is the website’s largest issue in terms of verification. Although this is evident in many other social media websites, in my opinion it is the most evident through Twitter. I also fear that perhaps characteristics such as this may impede on the growth of citizen journalism.

References:

Bruns, A. & T. Highfield. (2012). Blogs, Twitter, and breaking news: The produsage of citizen journalism. pre-publication draft on personal site [Snurb.info]. Published in: Lind, R. A. ed. (2012). Produsing Theory in a Digital World: The Intersection of Audiences and Production. New York: Peter Lang. p15-32.

Hermida, A. (2012). TWEETS AND TRUTH: Journalism as a discipline of collaborative verification. Journalism Practice. 6:5-6, p659-668.

Rethinking Sweatshop Economics!

I chose the Bangladesh Rana Factory Collapse as the topic for this week’s podcast, because, when this course originally started, what inspired me to choose the topic of Economic Development in Developing and Third World Countries was the collapse of this factory. I think that, in order for economic development to occur and thrive in developing and third world countries, it is extremely important that workers’ rights are respected. The issue with workers’ rights being respected is somewhat hard to enforce in developing and third world countries, because usually corruption and greed force workers’ rights to be placed at the bottom of a country’s priorities. For this reason, I believe that we, the citizens of developed countries, need to ensure that there is someone watching over these people. We need to ensure that the workers, that produce the goods that we use, have basic workers’ rights just like the workers in our own country. This podcast is based on CBC’s article Fast Fashion, Western Retailers, & The Bangladesh Building Collapse, which was published April 25th 2013. I hope that everyone enjoys the topic and is inspired to foster a culture of change…

Please click here to listen to the Podcast!

References:

CBC News. (2013, April 25). Fast Fashion, Western Retailers, & The Bangladesh Building     Collapse. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/social-issues/fast-fashion-cheap-clothes-the-bangladesh-building-collapse.html

Music, Culture, and Copyright: Reflection!

History has taught us numberous times that people revolt to ideas that they do not support. This lack of support for an issue has caused several revolutions or has caused several prohibitions to be ineffective. Larry Lessig, in his 2007 TED Talk, explained that copyright and piracy have become an ineffective form of prohibition. He basically explained that all of these laws, regulations, and policies do not mean much to consumers. As I previously blogged, I definitely agree with this view and see why this seems to be the case. Think about how many people engage in copyright violations or even piracy, and then ask yourself how many of these people faced true consequences for these actions? Not many, I bet. Furthermore, ask yourself if more people had to face the true consequences, how big of a strain would that put on our legal system? Thinking about this issue on a larger scale allows us to see that a solution to this issue is almost impossible.

Little Fish expressed that a proper legal frame that supports artists’ and consumers’ needs is needed. My question to that is how can we balance profits on one side, and consumers’ needs to be creative on the other? Where do we draw an acceptable line? Our government feels an obligation to protect the industry, as it helps the government generate revenue. Society feels an obligation to protect consumers, in order to incourage creativity and culture to flourish. To encourage creativity and culture to flourish means to diminish revenue to be generated, or does it? Is there a way to merge two opposite ideas to co-exist? 

Lifeofascanner agreed with my view that upping prices on subscriptions will just encourage more people into piracy and copyright infringement. Therefore, trying to increase revenue from the few people that actually still purchase content, is not the solution. Lifeofascanner also commented that “the artists that provide free downloads on iTunes have accepted that people download music illegally, and this is their way of controlling it. [They] hope that by giving a free [download], [consumers] will [be] encouraged to [purchase] their next songs”.  Little Fish further expressed: “I just hate those music producers who cannot accept any kind of remix [to] their work. They [do not] allow anyone [to] touch their work unless [they receive a] cheque. They [can only] be called businessmen [and] not artists because [the] only thing they can see is money [and] not [the]  great way of creation and transmission”. KK commented that “more effort needs to be directed to find an alternative approach to compensating the true creators and marketers”. KK further commented that “regulators should observe and study the Japanese anime [industry]”, an industry that has found more effective ways for compensation. These comments suggest that perhaps artists need to embrace this new technology and  become more open to creation.  Being more open to creation could also have further benefits for artists, such as enabling them to find more talent or new ideas for their own work. On the other side of the debate, I also believe that consumers need to change their mindset about this issue. We live in an age where we somehow have a great deal of entitlement, and we need to understand that these artists, and the people who help them, deserve fair compensation for their creative work. Overall, although a solution to this issue will be difficult to find, I do believe that it will be easier to find it once both consumers and artists have a mindset of compromise and fairness.

References:

Larry Lessig: Laws that choke creativity. TED Talks (2007). Filmed March 2007, posted November 2007. 

Music, Culture, and Copyright

This week we studied the topic of culture and copyright legislation on the music industry.  I always find the issues of copyright and piracy to be rather complex, and I find that for the most part people do not seem to have the right understanding about it. Think about the many people that you know, and then think about how many of them would know the true characteristics of copyright or piracy. Although I do not agree that ignorance is bliss, I think the lack of knowledge about copyright and piracy is part of the overall issue.

 For most of history, civilization only had to worry about one dimension of copyright and piracy, but in today’s modern age we are also confronted with the digital dimension. According to Steinmetz and Tunnell, “digital piracy is a type of copyright infringement—[which] is a global phenomenon that allegedly contains grave economic consequences for intellectual property industries” (2013, p.53). I definitely agree with this view. It has become a global phenomenon mostly due to the widespread reach of Internet, and intellectual property industries are really concerned about both current economic consequences and future ones. However, we cannot simply only concern ourselves with the affects on intellectual property industries, we must also concern ourselves with the affects on society and our overall culture. Digital technology is here to stay therefore; we must find a solution that appeals to both sides of the issue.

Before we can find a solution, we must first understand why our culture engages in piracy and copyright infringement. In the study “Under the Pixelated Jolly Roger: A Study of On-Line Pirates”, Steinmetz and Tunnell found several different motivators for piracy. They argue that the following reasons motivate piracy: “a desire to share digital cultural artifacts with each other, to sample content before making a purchase, an inability to afford digital content and a desire to circumvent or undermine copyright law and the digital content industry” (2013, p. 65). I agree that all of these reasons are possibilities as to why people engage in piracy. I would, however, add the facts that the consequences to engaging in piracy, although they exist, are rarely ever exercised on regular people, and the fact that engaging in piracy is so readily available, as further motivators to engage in it.

On the other side of the argument is the intellectual property industry. Although I see the affects that digital piracy and copyright infringement has had on the industry, in some ways I believe that the industry is too strict. The lawsuit that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) launched against its own customer for suspicion of sharing copyright music files online (Condry, 2004, p. 343) is a great example of just how strict the industry is trying to be.  Many believe that the way to overcome file sharing is to find a way to compensate for lost profits.

In his article “Cultures of Music Piracy: An Ethnographic Comparison of the US and Japan”, Condry suggests that fees should be charged on hard drives, blank CDs, and broadband Internet connections (2004, p. 345). I disagree with this view because there are many people that purchase these products without intent to engage in file sharing.  It would be unfair to punish everyone for the mistakes of few. In another article by McCourt and Burkart “When Creators, Corporations and Consumers Collide: Napster and the Development of On-line Music Distribution”, the authors argue that subscription prices should be increased to compensate for lost sales (2003, p. 344). I also disagree with this view because one of the motivators for piracy is an inability to afford digital content therefore; this solution may only encourage piracy more.

 Overall, I agree with Larry Lessig’s view that he expressed during a TED Talk back in 2007. Larry states that we almost live in an age of prohibition where consumers quite frankly do not even care about the rules anymore. Because of the many rules, laws, and regulations with copyright, people can simply not even keep up anymore. Furthermore, I believe that if there were more rules, law, and regulations for copyright our courts would not be able to keep up with it anymore either. I think that the best solution to this problem is to allow some copyright infringement and piracy as long as the person does not profit from it. If they do profit from it, they should compensate the original owner of the work. Furthermore, stopping or even regulating file sharing would be almost impossible due to the many ways of file sharing available to us. It would probably cost us more, as a society, to regulate it than it is for it to be available to us.

References

Condry, Ian. (2004). Cultures of Music Piracy: An Ethnographic Comparison of the US and Japan. International Journal of Cultural Studies. 7 (3), pg. 343-363

Larry Lessig: Laws that choke creativity. TED Talks (2007). Filmed March 2007, posted November 2007. 

McCourt, T., P. Burkart. (2003). When Creators, Corporations and Consumers Collide: Napster and the Development of On-line Music Distribution. Media, Culture & Society. 25 (3), pg. 333-350 

Steinmetz, K., K. Tunnell (2013). Under the Pixelated Jolly Roger: A Study of On-Line Pirates. Deviant Behavior. 34 (1), pg. 53-67

The Education Crisis

The Education Crisis has severe affects on the economies of developing and third-world countries today, and if left unsolved will continue to affect the future as well. This is a brief video that I made to raise awareness about the Education Crisis. I hope that everyone enjoys it, and that it inspires you to get involved in this important cause.

Does Creation Require Influence? Part II

Reading everyone’s blog posts and blog comments, I was amazed at the array of different opinions and thoughts. In my previous blog post, I questioned the idea of “creativity” and what we actually consider as “new”.  All week, this thought kept crossing my mind. I cannot describe how many examples I thought of that confirmed that our idea of “new” is not really that “new”. I was glad that others in my group shared the same beliefs as me. Little Fish commented that we should consider something as new, if the inspiration is taken from a different category than that new thing. Although I agree with Little Fish, I wonder, if such a definition of new was to be implemented, how many objects will we be able to describe as “new”? I think that society is not taught to be creative; in order words, we are taught to color within the lines and to never go outside of them. This may be what is creating this problem in the first place. Kkuhl2013 claimed that “it is so true that we, consciously or subconsciously, gather comparison data before striking off on our own”.  Is this because we were born this way, or is this due to the fact that we have been taught to be like this? I ask that everyone really think about his or her answer to this question, as it is not as straightforward as we think. In today’s age we are consistently asked to collaborate, share, and transform. Perhaps those consistent instructions have affected our ability to think on our own.

My other group members had some very interesting views on online shopping and social media. Lifeofascanner and ap09ti both discussed some of the benefits and dangers of online shopping. I think that online shopping is great, and I acknowledge that there are threats to online shopping, however, my view is that nothing can really replace the experience of shopping directly at a store. For some online shopping is convenient, for others it can be quite a frustrating experience. Having to potentially deal with returns, fraud, and deceiving pictures is enough of a risk for me to prefer shopping at a brick and mortar store. Technology is changing, and with that online shopping will improve as well. As online shopping improves, more people will likely begin to adapt to it quicker, and perhaps then my confidence in it will improve as well.

In terms of the question, of whether we produce content or consume content, most of us claimed to consume content more. Kkuhl2013 claimed to not produce content for the following reasons: “ time, lack of creativity, and not wanting to splash myself in the public domain”.  I definitely agree to all of Kkuhl2013’s reasons. I too lack the time, creativity, or desire to be public affect how much content I produce. The reason that caught most of my attention was the fact that we lack the “creativity” to do so. I find it remarkable that with today’s technology, which is supposed to encourage creativity, we find ourselves lacking this skill. 

Does Creation Require Influence?

This week’s topic about cultural production and new media was definitely interesting, and very applicable to today’s age. In terms of content production and consumption, I would describe myself as more of a consumer of content. I have a Facebook and Twitter account where I seldom produce anything. On twitter, I find myself re-tweeting other users’ tweets more than actually tweeting my own thoughts. On Facebook a similar pattern persists where I am sharing other users’ posts or simply liking or commenting on them, rather than posting anything on my own. If I ever produce anything on Facebook or Twitter, it is usually pictures or random posts about something exciting in my life. I do not usually produce my own online content because I simply do not have time, and I do not feel comfortable with the process of online production. My biggest worry about producing my own content is that it follows you around forever. Anything that you post on the Internet will be there for millions of people to see. The Internet is an open book where there is no eraser or white out to correct anything that has touched its pages.

The most interesting phrase of this week’s work was by Kirby Ferguson. I would strongly recommend for everyone to watch his video series and have therefore provided a link at the bottom of this blog for everyone’s reference. Ferguson, the producer of a video series called “Everything is a Remix”, notes that “creation requires influence”. His video series shares some enlightening views about the concept of creativity. Ferguson essentially claims that inventions, songs, movies, books or any types of art are based on a model of copying, transforming, and combining. He claims that copying, transforming, and combining are the three essential characteristics of creativity. I never really thought about creativity in this way before, but I think he has a serious point. After watching his video series, I reflected on my own everyday actions. Before I write any academic work, I research the Internet to draw inspiration on how I would like to structure my academic work. Before I decide what types of clothing to buy, I browse online pictures of great outfits to again draw inspiration. At times, I exactly copy something that I saw, like the online outfits; other times I may modify that which I saw to improve upon it, like when I research for my academic work. At work, or even at school, we are told to collaborate, combine, or add-on to ideas to develop something new. Since I work in the telecommunications sector, I reflected on the industry that I work in. Nowadays phone producers do not create new models of phones, they simply copy, transform, or combine them to develop something that we now describe as “new”. The more I reflected, the more I began to wonder what, if anything, is “new”?

Henry Jenkins, author of “The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence”, notes, “Media Convergence is more than simply a technological shift. Convergence alters the relationship between existing technologies, industries, markets, genres and audiences”. I agree with his view on Media Convergence, and wonder what affect this will have on the already diminishing idea of creativity.

References:

Ferguson, K. (2011). Everything is a Remix Part 1 [Video File]. Retrieved from
            http://vimeo.com/14912890 

Jenkins, H. (2004) The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence International Journal of
            Cultural Studies March 2004 7: 33-43

Economic Development: A Reliable Wikipedia Topic?

 

Given the importance of the issue of Economic Development, I was convinced that its Wikipedia entry would be extremely reliable. To my surprise, Wikipedia failed the topic of Economic Development. I am not writing this blog post to criticize Wikipedia, as I myself support Wikipedia. But rather, I am writing this blog post to educate users of some of the flaws of the Wikipedia process and how this causes issues with reliability.

There are several different resources that I used to assess the reliability of the topic of Economic Development on Wikipedia. The first resource that I used was the “Talk” tab directly on the article. This “Talk” tab lists comments from users of Wikipedia with respect to what parts of the article needed to be addressed, rephrased, cited, or corrected. Furthermore, I accessed the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Economic Development, and compared this article to the Wikipedia one. Lastly, I used some of the comments that my peers made on their blogs to further develop my arguments.

According to Jensen (2012), Wikipedia “has become the world’s dominant educational resource, with over 4 million articles in English”. The abundance of information found on Wikipedia is truly remarkable. However, one should address whether abundance of information translates to useful or appropriate information? In regards to Wikipedia’s entry on Economic Development, abundance of information was rarely the case. The article was definitely underdeveloped with many important sections and sources missing. Wikipedia rated this article as “Start” Class. A “Start” Class article has the following characteristics: “it is an article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources, it provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more, providing references to reliable sources should come first, and the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organization” (Wikipedia, 2013). The article on Economic Development matched every aspect of the “Start” Class classification. I applaud Wikipedia for developing such a rating system so that users have knowledge on how an article ranks. However, in my many years of using Wikipedia, I was never aware of the talk tab or even the rating system. To be more transparent and reliable, Wikipedia should post the article’s rank on the main page. This is extremely important as 26.4% of all assessed articles are ranked as “Start” Class (Wikipedia, 2013). It is great that Wikipedia has a ranking process in place, but if users are not aware of this process, then what exactly is the point of it?

According to Royal and Kapila’s article “What’s on Wikipedia, and What’s Not . . . ?: Assessing Completeness of Information”,  Wikipedia’s accuracy is close to that of Encyclopedia Britannica.  I wanted to test this view by reviewing the corresponding article on Encyclopedia Britannica. An individual posted Encyclopedia Britannica’s link to Economic Development on the “Talk” tab encouraging the writers to draw from this source. After reading both the Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica articles, I can, with confidence, conclude that Encyclopedia Britannica’s article is more concise, accurate, and developed than the Wikipedia one. It is also more transparent as I could find exactly who the contributors were and what their qualifications are. I could also find who all of the editors at Encyclopedia Britannica are, but I could not find who the specific editor for this article was. The article on Wikipedia has no mention at all on who the author is and what their qualifications are. Furthermore, the Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica articles had differing views.

It appears that the reason for these differing views is the biases of the authors and the sources.  According to Jensen, Wikipedia has a NPOV rule where “all articles must reflect a Neutral point of View, and POV, or bias, is a misdemeanor that is regularly removed” (2012). On Wikipedia’s article about Economic Development, several users commented that there appeared to be a strong U.S. bias, and a strong bias to use a particular agency as a source. These comments were posted as far back as 2009, with no modifications occurring since then.

I already established that the article on Economic Development failed the minimal expectations that I had for Wikipedia, however, many of my concerns plus more were brought up by people in the “Talk” tab. The problem is that since these concerns were brought up, no one has taken the time to correct or adjust the article. It makes me wonder what is the point for peer-review in Wikipedia? This is the part of Wikipedia’s process that needs the most work. Jensen points out that “the Wikipedia community uses kangaroo courts” and “the severest penalty is a ban for a period of time or permanent” (2012). Perhaps Wikipedia needs to adjust this part of the process to encourage writers to quickly update the information based on the suggestions. My peer kkuhlblog mentions that “the approach for self-governing is unique and puts the onus on you and I to challenge accuracy”. I agree with his point, however, we can challenge accuracy all we want, but unless there is some person of authority to oversee that change happens, our views or suggestions are pointless.

Everyone uses Wikipedia for different reasons. My peer yujiaying816 wrote that Wikipedia is mostly used as extracurricular reading. Although I agree that this may be the case, I see the potential for Wikipedia to become more than just extracurricular reading. I think that with some adjustments to the Wikipedia process reliability and accuracy can be greatly improved. Lifeofscanner wrote that people can easily edit information. Van Dijk and Nieborg, authors of Wikinomics and its discontents: a critical analysis of Web 2.0 business manifestos, also explained that all users have the equal ability to add to the Internet world (2009). I have seen that this is exactly the case, yet most of us choose not to edit the article. Most of us, even though we have the knowledge or expertise to add something more insightful to an article, choose for whatever reason not to. We can sit and criticize Wikipedia’s process as much as we like, but by not contributing to the issue (either by direct contribution or by seeking Wikipedia to change its process), we are becoming the issue. We need to help Wikipedia fill the missing puzzle pieces in their logo.

References:

Jensen, R. (2012). Military History on the Electronic Frontier: Wikipedia Fights the
              War of 1812. Journal of Military History. 76, 1. pp 1165-1182.

Royal, C. & Kapila, D. (2009). What’s on Wikipedia, and What’s Not . . . ?:
            Assessing
Completeness of Information. Social Science Computer Review. 27,
            1. pp 138-
148.

Van Dijk, J. & Nieborg, D. (2009). Wikinomics and its discontents: a critical analysis
            of Web 2.0 business manifestos. New Media & Society. 11, 5. pp 855-874.

Wikipedia. (2013).  Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial.Team/Assessment. May 31^st
            2013. Retrieved from:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assess
            ment#Quality_scale

Photo Retrieved From: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nojhan/3204073130/

Wikipedia: A reliable source or…? Reflection

After reading everyone’s blog posts and comments, it was evident to me that there are key themes shared amongst all of us.

I saw that everyone agreed to Wikipedia not being a reliable source for academic writing due to the fact that anyone can contribute or alter Wikipedia’s articles. It was also evident that all of us did not use Wikipedia for any academic writing as professors prohibit the use of Wikipedia as a source. On the other side, many of us use Wikipedia for general information or facts to satisfy our own interests. This makes me believe that we trust Wikipedia to answer our own curiosities, but we would not trust or are asked not to trust Wikipedia when our marks or careers are on the line.

In some ways, I also found that Wikipedia appeared to have a “negative” image. This is most likely the case, as many do not see Wikipedia as being “accurate”. Royal and Kapila’s article “What’s on Wikipedia, and What’s Not . . . ?: Assessing Completeness of Information” claims that Wikipedia’s accuracy is similar to the accuracy of Encyclopedia Britannica. I think that many of us were more surprised at how inaccurate Encyclopedia Britannica was, as opposed to how inaccurate Wikipedia was. Many of us would have most likely guessed that Encyclopedia Britannica was a lot more accurate when compared to Wikipedia. This changed the view that many of us had for both Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica. I think that many of the students now trust Wikipedia a lot more than they previously did.

Although Wikipedia appeared to have a “negative” image, almost everyone also had many positive things to say about Wikipedia. Most of us agreed that there was a lot of information on Wikipedia and that it was a good starting point to get knowledge about academic assignments. Furthermore, there is a lot of recent information that is actually really good and accurate. Recent information is sometimes hard to find in academic databases. Many also commented that it was a free service, so we should not have the same expectation as we would with a paid service. There is a lot of truth in that statement. I think that sometimes we take things for granted. Imagine if Wikipedia did start to charge for their service, how many of us would be upset?

When it comes to Wikipedia, I think what we should take away from this module is the advice that we should collect information from there with the same amount of caution that we use to collect information from the web in general. I would also further urge everyone to caution everything that we read or see. There are biases in Wikipedia, but many of those biases can also be found through other mediums.

Wikipedia will continue to influence society in the future and we should try to contribute to that influence. When we see something incorrect in a Wikipedia article, why not correct it? Let’s work together to address the issues that we currently face with Wikipedia.

References:

Royal, C. & Kapila, D. (2009). What’s on Wikipedia, and What’s Not . . . ?:
            Assessing
Completeness of Information. Social Science Computer Review. 27,
            1. pp 138-
148.