1. In this article, Stacy Schiff, talks about how Wikipedia came about as an online Encyclopedia, how it works, and where it might go in the future. Many people, especially those in the academic field, are critical of Wikipedia, and they oftentimes cite examples of ridiculous information provided by the website. However, this article makes a case for how Wikipedia functions almost as an anarchic community of information lovers. The website was designed by Wales in an attempt to provide free, easily accessible information to anybody that wants it. As the project grew, thousands of people began to help by adding, editing, and monitoring articles and information on the website. While this is from where much of the criticism is drawn, it is what allows the encyclopedia to provide such a breadth and depth of information. There is quite an organized system of monitoring the information on Wikipedia too. A cadre of people has been formed to ensure the quality of the articles. Overall, the article is written in support of Wikipedia and the groundbreaking type of encyclopedia that it is.
2. Passage
Wikipedians have evolved a distinctive vocabulary, of which “revert,” meaning “reinstate”—as in “I reverted the edit, but the user has simply rereverted it”—may be the most commonly used word. Other terms include WikiGnome (a user who keeps a low profile, fixing typos, poor grammar, and broken links) and its antithesis, WikiTroll (a user who persistently violates the site’s guidelines or otherwise engages in disruptive behavior). There are Aspergian Wikipedians (seventy-two), bipolar Wikipedians, vegetarian Wikipedians, antivegetarian Wikipedians, existential Wikipedians, pro-Luxembourg Wikipedians, and Wikipedians who don’t like to be categorized. According to a page on the site, an avid interest in Wikipedia has been known to afflict “computer programmers, academics, graduate students, game-show contestants, news junkies, the unemployed, the soon-to-be unemployed and, in general, people with multiple interests and good memories.” You may travel in more exalted circles, but this covers pretty much everyone I know.
This excerpt from Schiff’s article really shows how much of a culture Wikipedia has become. A lexicon could even be created. All the different words above such as WikiGnome and WikiTroll prove how information is monitored on the encyclopedia to ensure quality, which was one of the points emphasized in the article. As opposed to simply saying that information on Wikipedia is monitored, Schiff chooses a far more example by warranting her claims. She provides proof of the culture of Wikipedians.
3. The Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia both provide an extensive amount of information, but naturally their designs are extremely different given that one is electronic and the other is not. In terms of visceral design, a nice book set of the Encyclopedia Britannica is simply a beautiful sight. The books are all nicely bound and the pages are painted gold along the edges. Wikipedia on the other hand does not really have that initial appeal. The main page is simply a lot of grey/black on a white background. The price tag on the Encyclopedia Britannica will really give the potential buyer a visceral reaction too. It is far (nearing a thousand dollars) from the freeness that is Wikipedia. In terms of behavioral design, Wikipedia is far more functional. It provides much more information about many more topics than Encyclopedia Britannica. Navigation of Wikipedia is also a lot easier than Britannica. It takes far less time to get on the computer and type in a topic than look it up in a book. Wikipedia also provides links to other information regarding a certain topic whereas Britannica does not. In terms of reflective design, Britannica is a lot more respectable. While Wikipedia is a very useful resource, it is generally not accepted as a legitimate source in academia. Britannica on the other hand is a respected, more credible source. Simply having a set of beautiful books like Britannica can really make somebody proud too. People would be more proud saying that they learned about something when reading the Encyclopedia Britannica as opposed to Wikipedia.
No comments:
Post a Comment