I just watched this skit done by the College Humor crew which highlights and jokes about some of the problems with Wikipedia. A bit stagey but still funny and on some points quite apt.
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1830262
Did you watch it? What do you think about some of the points it raised?
Posts
Are we going to see Hadoop on Tape?
12 years ago
11 comments:
It's kind of funny (at times). It does highlight some of the issues, but not in a very accurate manner... It more sort of highlights the problems with wikipedia USE! Like how he's surfing from fact to fact... I find that if I search for something that is generally undebated, for instance the periodic table, chances are I will get almost 100% excellent info, no 'anus' at all.
In fact I've never got 'anus' ever I think. And if people are contesting a fact or instance, it's highlighted in an obvious manner, and you can go to wikitalk and find out what they are debating. And THAT an be VERY entertaining. I recently searched Nestor Makhno (a figure from the russian revolution and after it) and the wikitalk on that is fascinating. I think you can learn as much from that debate channel as you can from the actual article. And you would never get debate from Professor Brittanica!
true true....even the name Brittanica reveals the ideological bias and the fact that conventional encyclopedias ignore the debates around truths is the most compelling reason to support Wikipedia in my mind. I think its hilarious the way the Brittanica tries to defend itself against Wikipedia
Yeah, kind of funny. I agree that it is more about the problems of the use of Wikipedia than Wikipedia itself. It's not like you have to jump around following all of the available links. They are just there if you want them.
'... almost 100% excellent info...' is quite appropriate. You never are quite sure if you can completely trust what you are reading. It's kind of like 'ask the audience' on who wants to be a millionaire ie. chances are the 'truth' will rise to the top.
Everything about the encyclopedia Britanica makes me want to kick some smug British ass.
Truth in encyclopedias is often like truth according to white businessmen of a certain generation (as in "that's just the way the world is, dear.") Grrr.
I'm going to try and watch the video, but realistically, I have dial up so it'll take forever. . .
I think something the video does reasonably well is to illustrate the vertiginousness of finding truth when there is no mooring line, and when 'authority' has been questioned.
With truth now being a function of dominant or persuasive discourses, I like the challenge that Wiki offers. It kind of throws down the gauntlet and asks us whether we collectively care for truth, and if so to prove it.
Yes, I think that is totally true.
People are no longer complacent to just accept facts as truths and are wanting that 'gauntlet' to be thrown down; they want those questions to be openly raised and debated. And that debate naturally includes questions of authority, which people at present are responding well too. The skeptic inside becomes the skeptic online!
Also, I think looking at Wikis (and Wikipedia) as a challenge is a great approach because too many people at the moment seem to look at Wikipedia as a 'service', and judge it based on those merits, ignoring its intrinsic participatory nature. And I guess the thing is is that there is never going to be a 'mooring line' for the truth because it is so subjective.
Thanks for the comment!
Sam, I like the 'ask the audience' comparison - I might have to use that in one of my essays....
Thanks for the comment!
Exactly, dickos fortuna! The reality of it is that the discussion pages are often more informative and relevant than the article pages themselves and can often reveal things about the authors of the original article. I guess the sad thing is that most Wiki(pedia) users don't read those discussions to see how those truths and facts were arrived at. So yeah, as you already said I guess it highlights how people are using the site.
I wonder if there is any way of finding out that traffic data? I might have a look around, but does anybody know?
Cheers for comment!
Robyn and Toby; I agree, I think that encyclopaedia Brittanica is so old school and seems really outdated for the ways in which we like to learn, question and retrieve information these days. I think that people like to have the power to question (and debate, as you said Toby), which Brittanica doesn't offer in anyway.
It's like how people are tired with being talked AT in the media and how now we can see social trends preferencing systems which encourage active engagement instead. That touches on my point with my post about textbooks and history; people are tired of the rich white man telling everyone his version of events and denouncing anything in opposition.
The reason that Brittanica are always so up in arms about Wikipedia seems to be because they cannot comprehend that knowledge does not only come from having a tertiary education and qualification and instead scoff at the notion that all people everywhere (including them) can come to a consensus on truth, even if that consensus is that there are many truths. It seems so much more constructive for society than a collection of SELECTIVE information which ten editors in a room somewhere deemed to be fact. And it's not as though I don't think that they know what they are talking about, it's more that I am skeptical of their processes of information retrieval (who is THEIR authority?) and their overall motivations (does Brittanica favour Britain in its recounts of Historical facts, for example?).
Thanks for your great comments!
There's a new wikivideodictionary launched a couple of weeks ago which has the potential to be funny but not much use ... http://www.wordia.com/
re: wordia.
Thanks for the link, Sam. It's a pretty strange concept! I went and watched the one for the word 'camp' and a blonde chick told me that it is "diabolical" and is "absolutely the worst thing you could do on this planet"... And THEN (sorry, Aisleyne..) she says that she went camping at Glastonbury, "like the natives do, in a tent" but then found out that her tent was a paddling pool, so had to go six miles up the road to a hotel for the rest of the festival, which was much better because people with strobe lights had been threatening to jump on her head.. ...
Personally I like camping. And I'm not sure that I would understand what the word meant after watching her description.
Maybe it is meant to be funny? They define themselves as "a team of language enthusiasts and general word nuts who have joined forces to create a new kind of dictionary - a democratic ‘visual dictionary’", so I'm not sure that it is.
Post a Comment