1) Wikipedia offers comprehensive citations and source material and therefore provides a better entry point for serious study
2) Is instantly responsive to new developments
3) It provides the history and the controversy of any given subject
McLuhan believed that "technology alters cognition itself, all the way down the its deepest, most elemental processes." I thought that it was confusing that the article first states that sites like Wikipedia has caused the internet to become anti-intellectual and then it later stated that we are all "entering into the democracy of the intellect that is already bearing spectacular fruit". They stated that the internet is facilitating a number of spectacular project, such as the Gutenberg Project, Tor, and Linux.
I understand that they are attempting to discuss all sides of an issue but I was still confused about the point that they were trying to make at the end of the article. I believe that they were simply trying to say that experts are no longer the authority upon their subjects anymore due to the democratic/Maoist nature of collaborative sites such as Wikipedia. I think the implicated devaluation of the contributions of the common people really undermines the overall point of the article. Maybe I missed something? It seemed elitist while conceding that common people can do some things.
This article mentioned Comcast and how internet user were able to improve some of Comcast's customer service through mass outcry. This Reddit link goes to a subreddit that explains how/why it escalated to the point that thousands of people collaborated to associate Comcast with the Nazi symbol.
The association of the Nazi symbol with Comcast was the result of massive collaboration through the website Reddit
I love Wikipedia because encyclopedias never really provided enough information for me to completely understand certain events throughout history. I like that it was made for common people like me and I feel that I have better understanding of information I am interested in for it. I actually based a large amount of my history research proposal on an Anti-Suffrage Wikipedia page. It provided a lot of background information and gave a broad overview that I couldn't find in my primary sources and I was able to cite the Wikipedia sources in my proposal. I don't think that I would've gotten such a good grade on it if it weren't for Wikipedia.
I wrote my proposal about anti-suffrage men and (especially) women and the relevance of public discourse in a political forum. Turns out, there isn't much relevance and politicians just care about maintaining power most of the time.
We also read about Spreadable Media-guided Resource Demonstrations. I linked the study guide because it is really helpful for understanding such a dense chapter. It really makes sense that the platform that the information is shared on impacts the spreadability of the content. For example, I never would've found out about Marnie the Derpy Dog if it weren't for my sister sending me the link on Instagram. The convenience of being able to access information definitely impacts whether or not I'm going to look at something. Typically if I have to choose between a video and gif, I am always going to choose the GIF because it is easier to view in public and I don't have to wait for the video to load.
This video is of the adorable Marnie the Derpy Dog, who has a massive internet following
Thanks for looking at my blog, have a great week!
No comments:
Post a Comment