Wikipedia is often seen as the demon-child of the academic world. Without certain credibility it leaves students without verified information and and has professors wringing their necks trying to grade. The information is sometimes verified on the site but can still be editted by anyone, and it is not certain whether editted information is any more legitimate than its origin.
Along with information that can destroy the contents of a paper, the contents of Wikipedia page can also destroy or alter the reputation of people. During her talk at Clowes Hall, Madeleine Albright mentioned how she had looked herself up on Wikipedia only to find information about herself that she never knew! She chuckled about the findings, but not everyone is laughing after reading about themselves on Wikipedia. John Seigenthaler Sr. found his name on a Wikipedia page as being involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The information was untraceable, and was eventually removed, but the tarnishing of Seigenthaler's repuation was not.
Steven Colbert has made public comments about the ease of publishing on "Wikipedia: where you can make a contribution even when you don't know what the hell you're talking about" to take publishing a step further, he has even created a new word: wikilobbying. Wilkilobbying:
when money determines entries, reality becomes a commodity. What kind of information are we taking in if it is being paid for by a adds and swayed opinions?
let's be careful using Wikipedia and the type of information that is easily accessible; it's all paying a price somewhere. After all, what in life is really free?
No comments:
Post a Comment