Group 6 "Wikipedia" readings...
Let's make it easy and nice for the last class of the semester. These are the fun readings for Group 6's presentation on the theme "Wikipedia - the future of knowledge?".
1. Read this one first:Internet Encyclopaedias Go Head to Head: Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds., by Jim Giles, Nature, December 14, 2005
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/pf/438900a_pf.html
2. Then, the response: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., Fatally Flawed: Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal Nature, March 2006
http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf
3. If you find yourself interested after having read those, indulge yourself with some background information... in Wikipedia itself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
Now you're ready to go.
posted by KimNakho @ 7:03 PM
1 comments
1 Comments:
OK some group 6 questions to ponder:
- Is Wikipedia inherently more useful for pop culture than for academic knowledge? Why?
- Why in the world do they even let anonymous users post? Is "democratic participation" equivalent to "anonymous knowledge production"?
- Interesting how many times it is not controversy (like, whether you agree with George Bush's policies), but simple attention which attracts vandalism (even on subjects not controversial, like the Lake Michigan ferry). Why?
- Why do wikimedia advocates claim that a NPOV is desirable, rather than various competing/parallel articles, each able to claim their own POV? Which model do you think would be more useful? Which would lead us to the "truth"?
Post a Comment
<< Home