Wiki mania
Considering I'd never heard of a wikipedia before starting digital communication class, I've sure become interested, although I still fully don't understand. This article says that the popular online wikipedia could soon become a printed encyclopedia, competing with the 20-year-old set of world books my parents own.
Wikipedias, on their face, are a great idea. The thought of anyone being able to contribute to an encyclopedia is exciting (and also calls into question who writes those old-school encyclopedia entries anyway). At the same time, I'm still leery of the ability of an encyclopedia edited by schmoes like myself who have internet access and too much spare time to give us information we might rely on. There are far too many whack-jobs on the internet for me to trust some random stranger to tell me the truth and give it to me without spin.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
Wikipedias, on their face, are a great idea. The thought of anyone being able to contribute to an encyclopedia is exciting (and also calls into question who writes those old-school encyclopedia entries anyway). At the same time, I'm still leery of the ability of an encyclopedia edited by schmoes like myself who have internet access and too much spare time to give us information we might rely on. There are far too many whack-jobs on the internet for me to trust some random stranger to tell me the truth and give it to me without spin.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
posted by Jeremy and Ashley Wood at 12:01 PM
1 Comments:
yes, i like your question: who is it that does write the print encyclopedias, the encartas. and are they that much better than anyone else? methinks not. the power of ants to move mountains! knowledge workers unite!
Post a Comment
<< Home