Author Topic: Our flaming love-hate affair with Wikipedia and e-mail  (Read 4572 times)

Joe Carillo

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4659
  • Karma: +207/-2
    • View Profile
    • Email
Our flaming love-hate affair with Wikipedia and e-mail
« on: November 06, 2009, 08:47:40 PM »
The debate about its reliability as a source of information goes on, but meanwhile, Wikipedia has undoubtedly become one of the most tremendously useful social innovations the world has ever seen. And yet, as Evgeny Morozov, Yahoo! fellow at Georgetown University and a contributing editor to Foreign Policy, points out in an article in the November-December 2009 issue of the Boston Review, nobody would have bet on Wikipedia not more than a decade ago to become “a highly functioning, über-productive community that voluntarily creates usable (and frequently used) knowledge for others.”


Now a Wikipedia insider who joined the fledgling, two-year-old organization in 2003 has come up with a book, The Wikipedia Revolution: How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World’s Greatest Encyclopedia. Andrew Lih, who became one of Wikipedia’s administrators only a few months after his hiring, recounts and explains the website’s prodigious growth and development since it started on its noble mission to democratize access to knowledge. It is a story that Morozov describes in his review of the book as “strikingly readable and largely free of jargon.”

Read Evgeny Morozov’s “Edit This Page: Is it the End of Wikipedia” now!

A very timely companion reading to The Wikipedia Revolution is “Slow Down, Sign Off, Tune Out,” an article written for the October 22, 2009 issue of The New York Times by English professor Ben Yagoda of the University of Delaware. Reviewing John Freeman’s book, The Tyranny of E-mail: The Four-Thousand-Year Journey to Your Inbox, Yagoda finds fault with its author for ignoring the good and useful features of e-mail “in his zeal to expose e-mail’s dark side.”


In defense of e-mail, Yagoda says: “E-mail in particular and online writing in general have their well-known flaws and limitations, but they have also served as cleansing agents for prose, much as journalistic writing did early in the 20th century. That is, while they may disinhibit inappropriate declarations, they also inhibit dull, abstract wordiness.”

Read Ben Yagoda’s “Slow Down, Sign Off, Tune Out” now!

« Last Edit: November 11, 2009, 07:17:26 PM by jciadmin »

arjepm06

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Our flaming love-hate affair with Wikipedia and e-mail
« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2010, 10:37:07 AM »
But we should not let the Wikipedia be ended. I believe that this online encyclopedia is still the reason for me why we gained more knowledge. And we should never forget the benefits that it brought to us in our study.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2010, 04:38:41 PM by arjepm06 »

Joe Carillo

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4659
  • Karma: +207/-2
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Our flaming love-hate affair with Wikipedia and e-mail
« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2010, 12:32:21 PM »
You're right, of course, that Wikipedia is a very convenient first-line research tool that often points us to primary or more reliable sources of information. I often use it myself for doing elementary checking of noncontroversial facts such as biographies of historical figures long gone from the contemporary scene. For facts about living greats and not-so-greats, however, the information in Wikipedia could sometimes be one-sided, misleading, and notoriously self-serving. This is because a lot of publicists and PR people keep themselves busy trying to get favorable information about their client personages into Wikipedia's instant biographies. All the Wikipedia people can really do to curtail overt inaccuracies in posted information is to invite those affected by the wrong or inaccurate information to point it out--or forever hold their peace about the wrong information, so so speak. For serious researchers, of course, this means they have to double-check and cross-check information from Wikipedia with other information sources.

On the whole, however, I think Wikipedia is a great public service in the Information Age. It sure had sent the publishers of printed encyclopedias scrambling for new businesses or go online themselves to survive and remain socially relevant. More important, Wikipedia is making it difficult for people to plead ignorance or to remain ignorant of the basic information they need to be functional members of society. For that we should really doff our hats to Wikipedia's founders.