![[cupola]](/zsr/img/cupola.jpg)
Please watch the following: Wikiality and Wikilobbying.
These fun videos brings up several thought provoking points. Please comment. If you aren’t sure where to begin, reflect on one of the following questions:
- Does this impact your view of unrestricted online resources? How?
- What, if anything, in this video reinforces the importance of citations?
- Does the ease of updating Wikipedia compensate for the possible inaccuracies?
17 Responses to “Discussion Post 2: Wikipedia as a Reference Source”
Although the clips were intended to be funny, the ideas used to jest about wikipedia are quite interesting. I never realized how easily wikipedia can be changed to espouse the views of a few motivated people or organizations. For example, the fact that Microsoft wanted to pay to change information on wikipedia about the company to transform public perception does give me a disconcerting feeling. Although I use wikipedia often to research and familiarize myself with many topics, I now feel that wikipedia may not be providing factual information all the time. This only shows me that actual verifiable information in the forms of edited publications from accredited sources seems to be the best route to truly know a certain subject.
I thought it was an interesting point where he talks about bringing democracy to information. It was discussed how reality can be shaped by what the majority of people believe in and if enough people believe something is one way, then it can be changed, even if it is not accurate. However, I think that wikipedia has a definite place because if provides information on more current topics that have happened and also provides information on current actors, events, movies, etc. that would not be found in another encyclopedia. I think that it is alright to have possible inaccuracies on the topics that won’t have scholarly resources on them, but I think that it is best to consult a more reliable source for academic papers, etc.
I did not like how Microsoft tried to get its entry changed to provide a more favorable account of its image. I think that this defeats the purpose of wikipedia and really alters reality when it is influenced by money. This would make wikipedia more of a propaganda device than a semi-reliable source of information.
In both of the video clips, Stephen Colbert mockingly insinuates the dangers of relying too heavily on unrestricted online resources, such as Wikipedia, for reliable information. While the videos are humorous, they point to a significant aspect of our modern technological culture. We must be careful in assessing the validity of information found online, especially on sites such as Wikipedia which anyone who registers can edit. The fact that anyone can post any sort of information, valid or not, online suggests that citation of sources is even more important now than it was in the past. In order to examine the validity of information on a website, we need to determine the source of the information and the trustworthiness of that source. Obviously reality cannot be changed simply by changing information on sites such as Wikipedia, but Stephen Colbert’s humor warns modern readers to examine reality and information stringently in this technological age.
I think one of the key phrases in these videos is when Stephen Colbert said, “When Wikipedia becomes our most trusted reference source…” As the instances of Wikiality and Wikilobbying so humorously highlight, this collaboratively written reference material cannot be taken at face value. One must evaluate information from Wikipedia critically, but I believe this analytical attitude must extend to other sources as well. Citations allow one to track back to the primary source, which can be evaluated without the potential bias of a secondary or tertiary source.
These clips reminded me of an Office episode where they say, “Wikipedia can be edited from all over the world, so you know you are getting the best possible information.”
While it is funny to joke about, all of these statements speak to the dangers of putting too much faith in open-source websites such as Wikipedia. In truth, such sources can be a tremendous source for background information before getting started on a topic. Certainly, the ease of editing and updating Wikipedia to reflect current events is nice. Nonetheless, open ended sources such as Wikipedia are vulnerable to misrepresentation. We must look at these sources objectively and examine the validity of that information before using it as fact. Like all other things, information and truth can be twisted by the person presenting them– and though Colbert’s example of elephants seems absurd, it is likely a common phenomenon on sites such as Wikipedia.
Examining citations allows the reader to find the fallacy or truth of an argument, and reconstruct how the author came to that particular conclusion. Doing so might have shown the lack of evidence substantiating Colbert’s claim; at other times, it might have proven other online claims. Consequently, while new technologies such as Wikipedia are convenient sources of information, the benefits that come from this must be balanced by an increasingly critical look at sources and potential bias.
That just about blew me away. I thought it was just going to be a funny clip about Wikipedia but instead it really opened my eyes to how it really works. I didnt know that you could just go onto Wikipedia and write stuff and basically if enough people thought it was true that it would become true. To me, it just takes out all the credibility that I had for internet sources. I knew that some sites couldnt be trusted and that anyone could just post something that they found to be true to them by their standards but not a source like Wikipedia. I thought that would have been handled better in terms of listing credible information. Also when it started talking about how companies could pay to change their status to the population it just brought another topic into play. Everything is still controlled by politics. That sucks that you could control a site like that that so many people rely on for information. I always wondered why teacher said that Wikipedia was not really a credible source and now I know why!
I found these video clips making fun of the public’s new dependence on wikipedia as a reliable source very amusing. It’s amazing how people rely so often on a source that has absolutely no credibility except for a majority of people agreed with a statement. Random things become fact in this odd wikipedia realm either just for fun as Colbert showed with his example made out of the elephant population in Africa, or in order to manipulate the minds of the public to create a new reality as with the Microsoft example. It goes to show that not knowing where your information comes from can be a huge deal and can spread incorrect information as fact. Hence, wikipedia is a fun and easy place to find information, but one must thoroughly check that information out if they are going to use it as fact.
Despite the humorous intention of these clips, Stephen Colbert brings to our attention some points that are important to consider. How much has credibility and accuracy been compromised in today’s society where we receive our information from many different sources? How many people around the world look things up on sites like wikipedia and just take what they see at face value and assume its validity? These are questions that we as a society should ask ourselves from time to time, just to be sure that we understand the need to be careful in trusting our sources. However, I do believe that ultimately, people do realize the need to verify information and to a certain extent, follow up on these inclinations. This is one way in which citations can be useful. It is easy to check on the validity of a statement if one knows where it came from. Accuracy and credibility will always be important, because of they fade away too much, we all might believe that there are more elephants in Africa today than there were 10 years ago.
I think that many people today, including myself, do rely on Wikipedia for information. But, most people assume that the information is accurate just because it is on the site. Although its true that not just anyone can edit wikipedia, you have to go in and register, I feel as if alot of the information on Wikipedia is facts swayed by personal opinion. At the bottom of each entry, there are references for information which I think is important. The thing that shocked me the most was the fact that Microsoft was willing to pay someone to edit their site so that they would be able to influence public opinion about their product. When he said “Reality has become a commodity” that is somewhat of a scary thought.. especially because it is not that far off from the truth.
Though Colbert’s videos were very funny, it was scary to think how much I rely on wikipedia. When I want to look up something quickly, or just get some background facts, over the past year or so, going to wikipedia has been my first instinct. Its really unnerving to think that I could be reading an article about elephants, and come across that Stephen Colbert has helped triple the elephant population. At the same time, I have always been told that wikipedia is an unreliable resource, which is why I have always steered clear of it for academic purposes. These videos have made me think about examining how and why I use wikipedia casually. The Microsoft aspect of the videos gives a surprising angle to the story. I understand it is in Microsoft’s best interest to appear favorable on wikipedia, which has become a resource used by so many. It was still shocking to hear that they paid someone to change wikipedia. Overall, Colbert is right, reality truly has become a commodity. What is scary is how it has affected me and what aspects of my reality are untrue.
I found the video clips on the credibility of Wikipedia to be be very interesting. Even though Colbert was jokingly bashing the site, everything that he said had truth behind it. Internet sites like Wikipedia can not always be reliable when trying to obtain credible information when doing research on a topic, and I think that this is something that is understood by most people. So, therefore these videos in no way made an impact on the way that I view unrescrited online sources,but it did reinforce the importance of using citations.I think that it should be a new requirement added to Wikipedia, that anyone who edits the infomation should have to cite the source that they used to obtain it just in case there is some sort of discrepancy with the information that they provided. I also think that this will keep people from posting bogus information because they won’t have a credible source to back them up.
I found that the comments made by Steven Colbert to be very humorous but suprisingly true. I read up on how wikipedia recieves its information and found that no credentials were actually needed in order to publish or edit some form of information on the website. I was also taken back by microsofts attempts to improve their image by the use of propaganda on the internet. Lying in order to gain th publics trust would seeem like the last way possible to get people to believe you and i could not believe that microsoft would attempt this stunt on wikipedia. I sometimes use wikipedia to get a broad overview of topics but i will be much more objective and careful when considering what to take away form this website.
I found the clips funny and very true. Many sites such as Wikipedia can be easily changed in order to reflect one person’s view. Changing things allows for the spread of misinformation. As these websites become more and more popular, this becomes more of an issue. It would be nice if there were a way to know who did the editing and what they wished to prove by their changes. Till then we all need to just take what we read from these sites at face value.
Stephen Colbert made very valid points in his satirical review of Wikipedia. I think the most important message to be taken from these sketches would be the message that has always been voiced about information on the internet. That message would be to be extremely careful about using the information you find on the internet because you do not know whether or not the information is reliable.
For example, my friend posted his own addition to wikipedia under the topic of “Email.” He wrote in the history category that “On September 15, 2007, [I] wrote the greatest email ever written.”
While wikipedia is a good resource to start a research project, it should not be relied upon for completely accurate analysis.
I thought these videos were extremely humorous and very true. I think Wikipedia is a wonderful source but now I’m a little hesitant to use it. I have always known that it wasn’t always correct but I was not aware of how easy it is to change an entry. I am thankful it exists though because it tends to be rather accurate and helps one get a start on learning about pretty much anything.
I also found the second video on Wikilobbying to be very interesting. The idea that companies are paying people to go and create entries in favor of their businesses is brilliant on their part but potentially dishonest.
Wiki is a great source as it allows tons of people to add insight on interesting topics. Unfortunately, that allows for some abuse an inaccuracies. But for the most part, Wiki is an outstanding source as the inaccuracies are generally weeded out, as the system is designed.
If used properly, Wiki is a great starting point to get a feel from a topic and it can refer you to sources which you can trust as accurate. So, use and enjoy Wiki, but don’t assume everything on it is necessarily factual.
hello it is test. WinRAR provides the full RAR and ZIP file support, can decompress CAB, GZIP, ACE and other archive formats.
zdueiaxutcwaodqrswpfeyhepyfgkkhmzhvhello