The Crown College website modified the information displayed about Dr. Hustad. His name is now diplayed as L. Arnold Hustad, as opposed to Arnold L. Hustad.
Like I said, Wikipedia is changing the world!
Friday, April 25, 2008
Stubs: Prodigies and Philosophers
As a follow up to the investigation of the stub Article on L. Arnold Hustad, I enjoyed the following e-mail exchnage with him:
>>> Victoria Crowley 04/18/08 4:41 PM >>>
Hello, Dr. Hustad.
I'm doing a project on Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia. You are currently known as a philosopher in what is know as a stub article. Your name is Dr. L. Arnold Hustad. On the Crown faculty page, it's Dr. Arnold L. Hustad. I'm wondering what the most accurate position of the "L" is. And I was also wondering if you would mind me posting your picture on Wikipedia as well as any other biographical information I might attempt to attain?
Sincerely,Victoria
>>> Arnie Hustad 04/21/08 10:14 PM >>>
Hi Victoria!
I guess it would be alright to post a picture on Wikipedia. Actually, I'm not sure who placed the entry there in the first place. Must have been a former student. I'm a rather low profile person, but I don't imagine anyone gets into the short article very often, so I don't have much to worry about.
It is L. Arnold, so Wikipedia is correct. We will have to get the Crown page changed.
I wish you well on your project!
Dr. Hustad
~
I am currently watching his page. The process of uploading a picture is too complex for me - I need to sit down and go through a tutorial to learn.
Here's a quote I thought really resonated with my project, especially with what I just recounted:
“The results indicate that there is a linkage between Wikipedia as a 'working draft of history' and current news events.” (Lih, 2004, p. 19) - (From the article I read that was cited a few blogs ago.)
>>> Victoria Crowley 04/18/08 4:41 PM >>>
Hello, Dr. Hustad.
I'm doing a project on Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia. You are currently known as a philosopher in what is know as a stub article. Your name is Dr. L. Arnold Hustad. On the Crown faculty page, it's Dr. Arnold L. Hustad. I'm wondering what the most accurate position of the "L" is. And I was also wondering if you would mind me posting your picture on Wikipedia as well as any other biographical information I might attempt to attain?
Sincerely,Victoria
>>> Arnie Hustad 04/21/08 10:14 PM >>>
Hi Victoria!
I guess it would be alright to post a picture on Wikipedia. Actually, I'm not sure who placed the entry there in the first place. Must have been a former student. I'm a rather low profile person, but I don't imagine anyone gets into the short article very often, so I don't have much to worry about.
It is L. Arnold, so Wikipedia is correct. We will have to get the Crown page changed.
I wish you well on your project!
Dr. Hustad
~
I am currently watching his page. The process of uploading a picture is too complex for me - I need to sit down and go through a tutorial to learn.
Here's a quote I thought really resonated with my project, especially with what I just recounted:
“The results indicate that there is a linkage between Wikipedia as a 'working draft of history' and current news events.” (Lih, 2004, p. 19) - (From the article I read that was cited a few blogs ago.)
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Continuing the randomness...
So, I clicked on the random article link that's in my last blog and arrived at this Wikipedia article:
Hiroshi Yamamoto (archer)
It's about this dude from Japan who competed in the 2004 Olympics. It's only a stub, so it's a short one. This article has these words above it:
"This article does not cite any references or sources. (April 2008)Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed."
How random is that?
Hiroshi Yamamoto (archer)
It's about this dude from Japan who competed in the 2004 Olympics. It's only a stub, so it's a short one. This article has these words above it:
"This article does not cite any references or sources. (April 2008)Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed."
How random is that?
Random Article
Some random Wikipedia articles:
Karl V. Teeter
Peter Calabresi
Eski Imaret Mosque
Echandelys
Weott, California
Wikipedia generated these articles using its "random article" feature. Every time I clicked on the "Random article" link, a random article showed up. It's a fun way to learn about something random!
The pursuit of knowledge continues, and all it takes is a random article!
Karl V. Teeter
Peter Calabresi
Eski Imaret Mosque
Echandelys
Weott, California
Wikipedia generated these articles using its "random article" feature. Every time I clicked on the "Random article" link, a random article showed up. It's a fun way to learn about something random!
The pursuit of knowledge continues, and all it takes is a random article!
Speedy deletion alert!
This message appeared on my talk page in regards to my spoof article that no longer exists:
"Speedy deletion of John wheaton
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. greenrd (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC) greenrd (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)"
"Speedy deletion of John wheaton
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. greenrd (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC) greenrd (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)"
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Wikipedia and my college
Part of my Wikipedia explorations is the investigation of how Crown College, the institution which I attend, is represented it on this free, online encyclopedia. There are currently two different articles pertaining to my school: "Crown College (Minnesota)" & "L Arnold Hustad ."
There are currently no pictures on uploaded to the Crown College Wikipedia sight, which I find very sad, considering other colleges have illustrations with their articles. I would like to take the project of expanding and editing this page on; however, just trying to upload a picture was a process with which I quickly became overwhelmed.
I mentioned in earlier blog that Wikipedia is virtually impossible to vandalize. Here's why (I know this from experience and it was only confirmed by that article I've been reading).
One of the professors at my college was "running for president." There were a number of students that were "campaigning for him." It was a fun little rouse (Is that even the right word?). The idea came into my head that I should put this professor and his "presidential campaign on Wikipedia. At the time, I wasn't aware of everything I'm aware of now. I go to http://www.wikipedia.org/, get a user name and password to become an editor (which isn't necessary, by the way), and type up this super brief and spoof article. It was instantly deleted. It was literally a matter of seconds. I think there was a five-second interval when Wikipedia would "go" to article. Then it was gone, and I was told something to the extent of "The administrator did not find demontrated historical significance with the material.
For the purpose of further research, I tried to re-create this experience and attain the exact quote from the adminstrator; so I created another spoof article. (It may or not be there by the time you click this link.)
It's still there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_wheaton. The article is simply this sentence copied and pasted multiple times: "This article is an intentional spoof article for the purpose of research." The article is titled "Spoof."
What does this have to do with uploading pictures? Wikipedia is pretty picky about the copyright of the images that are uploaded to its site. They explain everything in extensive articles.
My last spoof article was deleted instantly.
My spoof article is still there. Maybe I'll UNspoof this article for the purpose of more research...
There are currently no pictures on uploaded to the Crown College Wikipedia sight, which I find very sad, considering other colleges have illustrations with their articles. I would like to take the project of expanding and editing this page on; however, just trying to upload a picture was a process with which I quickly became overwhelmed.
I mentioned in earlier blog that Wikipedia is virtually impossible to vandalize. Here's why (I know this from experience and it was only confirmed by that article I've been reading).
One of the professors at my college was "running for president." There were a number of students that were "campaigning for him." It was a fun little rouse (Is that even the right word?). The idea came into my head that I should put this professor and his "presidential campaign on Wikipedia. At the time, I wasn't aware of everything I'm aware of now. I go to http://www.wikipedia.org/, get a user name and password to become an editor (which isn't necessary, by the way), and type up this super brief and spoof article. It was instantly deleted. It was literally a matter of seconds. I think there was a five-second interval when Wikipedia would "go" to article. Then it was gone, and I was told something to the extent of "The administrator did not find demontrated historical significance with the material.
For the purpose of further research, I tried to re-create this experience and attain the exact quote from the adminstrator; so I created another spoof article. (It may or not be there by the time you click this link.)
It's still there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_wheaton. The article is simply this sentence copied and pasted multiple times: "This article is an intentional spoof article for the purpose of research." The article is titled "Spoof."
What does this have to do with uploading pictures? Wikipedia is pretty picky about the copyright of the images that are uploaded to its site. They explain everything in extensive articles.
My last spoof article was deleted instantly.
My spoof article is still there. Maybe I'll UNspoof this article for the purpose of more research...
Saturday, April 19, 2008
A @#**%ing Wikipedia Adventure
It's true. If you're one of those people who consistently look up off-color terms on line and in the dictionary, then you may already know. Wikipedia has an article on the word fuck.
How did I come across this topic? Well....the paper that I'm currently reading (and was cited in my last post) mentioned that "It [Wikipedia] has even been used in United States litigation, when in July 2003, a Wikipedia article on profanity was cited in a motion to dismiss a case in a Colorado court" (5). Just like any good researcher, Andrew Lih footnoted his reference, so I looked it up: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/fword1.html.
Wow. If Wikipedia convinced a Colardo court, what else/who else is it going to convince?
(BTW, for more information on Andrew Lih, there's a writer I came across who was one of his colleagues at Columbia. Lih came highly recommended: "He's been using Wikipedia as part of his journalistic work and his teaching./Andrew and I taught the advanced new media classes at Columbia for several years, so I trust him on all things technological. Since he is one of the world's top experts on new media, if he was praising Wikipedia, it had to be good." You'll find this quote along with excerpts from the article I'm reading at
http://www.poynter.org/dg.lts/id.32/aid.62126/column.htm.)
The shape of wisdom is changing!
How did I come across this topic? Well....the paper that I'm currently reading (and was cited in my last post) mentioned that "It [Wikipedia] has even been used in United States litigation, when in July 2003, a Wikipedia article on profanity was cited in a motion to dismiss a case in a Colorado court" (5). Just like any good researcher, Andrew Lih footnoted his reference, so I looked it up: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/fword1.html.
Wow. If Wikipedia convinced a Colardo court, what else/who else is it going to convince?
(BTW, for more information on Andrew Lih, there's a writer I came across who was one of his colleagues at Columbia. Lih came highly recommended: "He's been using Wikipedia as part of his journalistic work and his teaching./Andrew and I taught the advanced new media classes at Columbia for several years, so I trust him on all things technological. Since he is one of the world's top experts on new media, if he was praising Wikipedia, it had to be good." You'll find this quote along with excerpts from the article I'm reading at
http://www.poynter.org/dg.lts/id.32/aid.62126/column.htm.)
The shape of wisdom is changing!
Wikipedia knows Hawaiin
Did you know?
..."Wiki-wiki" is Hawaiin word for quick.
...This online resource used to be called "Nupedia" and the preferred requirement for editors was a Ph.D. Because of this requirement, Nupedia only had a few hundred articles. (Nupedia started up and shut down in 2000.)
(Blogger's commentary: Isn't that interesting? Those considered competent by a legally and internationally recognized document proving that one researched, wrote a paper and defended it were once the only ones who contributed. Now that the playing field has opened up, everyone's contributing, no doubt from every level of competency, scholarship and education. Think about this: how many people do you know might as well have a Ph.D? They just never went to school and did work for a grade. Instead, they lived life, read books, talked to people and learned from the greatest classroom of all: the world! This is what I'm saying: the modernist values the Ph.D., the documented validation. What does the postmodernist value concerning scholarship?)
Did you know? (cont.)
...Wikipedia has a mantra: neutrality.
...Wikipedia as we know it today started when the two guys who started Nupedia published the articles they already had to a wiki site and opened it up for browsers to edit and add to.
...It's "virtually" impossible to vandalize a Wikipedia article.
I am currently reading a paper written by a professor from the University of Hong Kong, the resource from which I'm gleaning all this beautiful information:
(Since it's such a habit of mine, need I mention that on top of the University of Hong Kong article are the words "This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page"?)
Lih, Andrew (April 16-17, 2004).Wikipedia as Participatory Journalism: Reliable Sources?. 5th International Symposium on Online Journalism. 1-3.
There's a PDF available somewhere. One of my professors passed this on to me. Feel free to email me (crowleyvs05@crown.edu) if you would like me to send you the PDF.
..."Wiki-wiki" is Hawaiin word for quick.
...This online resource used to be called "Nupedia" and the preferred requirement for editors was a Ph.D. Because of this requirement, Nupedia only had a few hundred articles. (Nupedia started up and shut down in 2000.)
(Blogger's commentary: Isn't that interesting? Those considered competent by a legally and internationally recognized document proving that one researched, wrote a paper and defended it were once the only ones who contributed. Now that the playing field has opened up, everyone's contributing, no doubt from every level of competency, scholarship and education. Think about this: how many people do you know might as well have a Ph.D? They just never went to school and did work for a grade. Instead, they lived life, read books, talked to people and learned from the greatest classroom of all: the world! This is what I'm saying: the modernist values the Ph.D., the documented validation. What does the postmodernist value concerning scholarship?)
Did you know? (cont.)
...Wikipedia has a mantra: neutrality.
...Wikipedia as we know it today started when the two guys who started Nupedia published the articles they already had to a wiki site and opened it up for browsers to edit and add to.
...It's "virtually" impossible to vandalize a Wikipedia article.
I am currently reading a paper written by a professor from the University of Hong Kong, the resource from which I'm gleaning all this beautiful information:
(Since it's such a habit of mine, need I mention that on top of the University of Hong Kong article are the words "This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page"?)
Lih, Andrew (April 16-17, 2004).Wikipedia as Participatory Journalism: Reliable Sources?. 5th International Symposium on Online Journalism. 1-3.
There's a PDF available somewhere. One of my professors passed this on to me. Feel free to email me (crowleyvs05@crown.edu) if you would like me to send you the PDF.
Chasing Wisdom
The reason I had been exploring what Wikipedia offered about the Book of Ruth is because I recently wrote a paper exegetically explaining the third chapter of this book from a feminist perspective. For those of you interested (it really is fascinating paper, if I may so myself as an aspiring scholar), email me (crowleyvs05@crown.edu) and I'll send it to you.
If you are reading my blogs without Blogger Account, please email me your comments and feedback as well!
If you are reading my blogs without Blogger Account, please email me your comments and feedback as well!
Friday, April 18, 2008
Problem solved?
So, I started my own talk page on which I can talk to other Wiki users. I pretty much pleaded for help. You can check my very dull and boring talk page out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scotia2009
It's pretty visually stimulating.
It's pretty visually stimulating.
Problem!
You should probably go to Wikipedia right now just to see what I'm talking about. There's a problem with the article on the Book of Ruth. It's a graphic problem. There's a huge gap. And I'm trying to figure out who to fix it in editor right now. The gap is right under the word "CONTEXT."
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Wikipedia and the Bible
I type in "the bible." The first thing I click on once I arrive at the page is this picture:
"I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses:
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.Subject to disclaimers.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License."
This image has no copyright. It "has been released into the public domain by its author, Laitche. This applies worldwide." Interestingly enough, there is this notice: "In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so:Laitche grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.")
Links.
Images.
The Wikipedian pursuit of knowledge continues.
The interesting thing about this picture is that, unlike the other one, it is copyrighted. However, the copyright holder allows the public to use his image according to the terms set by the GNU Free Documentation License:
"I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses:
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.Subject to disclaimers.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License."
The "Creative Commons (CC) is a non-profit organization devoted to expanding the range of creative works available for others to legally build upon and share." Therefore, I am legally posting this image. (By the way, the Creative Commons page displays these words above the article:
"This article or section seems to contain embedded lists that may require cleanup.To meet Wikipedia's style guidelines, please help improve this article by: removing items which are not notable, encyclopedic, or helpful from the list(s); incorporating appropriate items into the main body of the article; and discussing this issue on the talk page.")
According to the GNU Free Documentation License, I am allowed to "copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or non commercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License." I'm not really sure what "provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice...are reproduced in all copies" practially means for this blog, so hopefully simply providing the link suffices. :)
Wikipedia is so loaded with references for every word and image that appears on the site. For example, this image to the right has a name: Text-x-generic.svg. This image is also a file from the Wikimedia Commons. 
(By the way, this is the "Picture of the Day" being displayed on the Wikimedia Commons Main Page right now:
This image has no copyright. It "has been released into the public domain by its author, Laitche. This applies worldwide." Interestingly enough, there is this notice: "In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so:Laitche grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.")
Links.
Images.
The Wikipedian pursuit of knowledge continues.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Postmodern Research
Even though the shape of knowledge is changing, the pursuit is still there. The pursuit of knowledge in Web 2.0, however, is drastically different than perusing the shelves according to the Dewey Decimal System of the Modern Library.
I decided to begin educating myself on the Presidential Candidate Barack Obama. Up until now, I'll be honest: I was unabashedly supporting him without really being informed on who he is or what he thinks. That's kind of huge for me to admit, by the way. :) So I'm educating myself on him through the methodology of postmodern research.
The distinction between postmodern reasearch on Web 2.0 and modern research through the pages of books is the path on which my research took me. It was not a path of linear logic or a chronology or a topical outline or even an index of related topics. It was a path that is only possible to tread because of "links." These "links" become connectors of unrelated things, which stands in stark contrast to the method of the book.
What am I talking about? Let me tell you through outlining my research adventure through Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia.
1. Type the words "Barack Obama."
2. Begin reading the article written about Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.
3. Find myself intrigued by his educational background and click on "Columbia University ," wondering if it is an ivy league school.
(By the way, the article on Columbia University "needs additional citations for verification." Wikipedia also implores its readers and editors to "Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." That note has been up there since October of 2007.)
4. Then I discover that before attending Columbia, he went to Occidental College for two years in Los Angeles. In 1912, the trustees of Occidental College were going to convert the school to an all-male institution, but the strong reaction from the students prevented this from happening.
5. Intrigued by his religious affiliation, I click on (Trinity United Church of Christ), which is found in his biographical profile to the right of the article. I discover it's a mega church, the largest congregation of that denomination, and located in Chicago, Illinois.
6. A few lines below the previous link, I click on "Political positions."
a. First, I follow the links provided in the "contents" to Darfur and Armenian Genocide, discovering that he's definitely humanitarian.
b. The link to Armenian Genocide takes me to a paragraph right above the heading that labels Obama's "Social Policy," of which the first subhead is "Abortion and contraception." I'm immediately interested and soon become more familiar with Planned Parenthood and discover Obama's stated position on abortion: "Abortions should be legally available in accordance with Roe v. Wade." (This quote is footnoted to its source: "1998 Illinois State Legislative National Political Awareness Test.")
c. The Planned Parenthood link leads me to "sexuality education."
i. The first thing I perceive upon arriving at the Wikipedia article on sex education is "An early 20th century post card" that "documents the problem of unwanted pregnancy."
(By the way, I am legally allowed to post this image for your own viewing pleasure because it is considered to be a part of the public domain and its copyright has expired. This image is also a part of the collection know as the Wikimedia Commons.)
ii. I continue to scroll down the page and discover "Sex education worldwide." I discover that sex education in Sweden has been mandatory since 1956 and that in Finland the "Population and Family Welfare Federation provides to all 15-year-olds an introductory sexual package that includes an information brochure, a condom and a cartoon love story." (This is footnoted back to its source, "Sex Has Many Accents," an article in Time Magazine.)
Finally, I had to stop myself or else I could be surfing the web for hours, and that is the point! As I explored the knowlege-filled caves of Wikipedia, the links allowed me an experience that is only possible in the world of Web 2.0 - right at my finger tips. No frantic flipping through pages or running my finger down a list of topics in the index. No walking around shelves of book, scanning the spines for the right number. Just a click on a link.
The shape of wisdom is changing.
I decided to begin educating myself on the Presidential Candidate Barack Obama. Up until now, I'll be honest: I was unabashedly supporting him without really being informed on who he is or what he thinks. That's kind of huge for me to admit, by the way. :) So I'm educating myself on him through the methodology of postmodern research.
The distinction between postmodern reasearch on Web 2.0 and modern research through the pages of books is the path on which my research took me. It was not a path of linear logic or a chronology or a topical outline or even an index of related topics. It was a path that is only possible to tread because of "links." These "links" become connectors of unrelated things, which stands in stark contrast to the method of the book.
What am I talking about? Let me tell you through outlining my research adventure through Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia.
1. Type the words "Barack Obama."
2. Begin reading the article written about Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.
3. Find myself intrigued by his educational background and click on "Columbia University ," wondering if it is an ivy league school.
(By the way, the article on Columbia University "needs additional citations for verification." Wikipedia also implores its readers and editors to "Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." That note has been up there since October of 2007.)
4. Then I discover that before attending Columbia, he went to Occidental College for two years in Los Angeles. In 1912, the trustees of Occidental College were going to convert the school to an all-male institution, but the strong reaction from the students prevented this from happening.
5. Intrigued by his religious affiliation, I click on (Trinity United Church of Christ), which is found in his biographical profile to the right of the article. I discover it's a mega church, the largest congregation of that denomination, and located in Chicago, Illinois.
6. A few lines below the previous link, I click on "Political positions."
a. First, I follow the links provided in the "contents" to Darfur and Armenian Genocide, discovering that he's definitely humanitarian.
b. The link to Armenian Genocide takes me to a paragraph right above the heading that labels Obama's "Social Policy," of which the first subhead is "Abortion and contraception." I'm immediately interested and soon become more familiar with Planned Parenthood and discover Obama's stated position on abortion: "Abortions should be legally available in accordance with Roe v. Wade." (This quote is footnoted to its source: "1998 Illinois State Legislative National Political Awareness Test.")
c. The Planned Parenthood link leads me to "sexuality education."
i. The first thing I perceive upon arriving at the Wikipedia article on sex education is "An early 20th century post card" that "documents the problem of unwanted pregnancy."
(By the way, I am legally allowed to post this image for your own viewing pleasure because it is considered to be a part of the public domain and its copyright has expired. This image is also a part of the collection know as the Wikimedia Commons.)
ii. I continue to scroll down the page and discover "Sex education worldwide." I discover that sex education in Sweden has been mandatory since 1956 and that in Finland the "Population and Family Welfare Federation provides to all 15-year-olds an introductory sexual package that includes an information brochure, a condom and a cartoon love story." (This is footnoted back to its source, "Sex Has Many Accents," an article in Time Magazine.)
Finally, I had to stop myself or else I could be surfing the web for hours, and that is the point! As I explored the knowlege-filled caves of Wikipedia, the links allowed me an experience that is only possible in the world of Web 2.0 - right at my finger tips. No frantic flipping through pages or running my finger down a list of topics in the index. No walking around shelves of book, scanning the spines for the right number. Just a click on a link.
The shape of wisdom is changing.
Wikipedian Declaration
In case you have just joined this blogging adventure, below is my declaration of what I am doing.
Scoffed at by scholars and discredited by academics, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, has been dismissed as an unreliable source; but does this statement still hold true today in an ever-increasing postmodern society? The infamous Wikipedia.org is in fact more authoritative than what some uppity researchers have made it out to be—which is what I have set out to prove.
Wikipedia is in fact a well-researched website, and the research invested into this encyclopedia never stops—articles and article stubs are constantly being checked by Wikipedia editors daily. Anyone can be an editor, and anyone can contribute; but not everything will be published and presented to the public’s eye (details of which will be discussed in depth later).
(In fact, if you follow the link to "postmodern society," you will discover that a Wikipedia article by that title does not exist yet. This is free reign for someone to hone their intellect and make a knowledgeable contribution.)
Wikipedia’s “public” includes speakers of French, German, Italian, and more! It is a world-wide source, constantly checked and edited by scholars world-wide. It is a product of Web 2.0 as well as today’s ever-increasing postmodern society. A source that is accessible for anyone who is anybody to contribute relevant information about today’s world? That sounds postmodern.
Just like anything good in this world, it has a history, and even Wikipedia’s history gives it credibility. I’m going to prove and demonstrate that Wikipedia is a reliable source, and a Wikipedia article cited in a bibliography is not a bad thing. I myself became a Wikipedia editor and, through my personal and intellectual experience, I will bring honor to Wikipedia’s name.
Scoffed at by scholars and discredited by academics, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, has been dismissed as an unreliable source; but does this statement still hold true today in an ever-increasing postmodern society? The infamous Wikipedia.org is in fact more authoritative than what some uppity researchers have made it out to be—which is what I have set out to prove.
Wikipedia is in fact a well-researched website, and the research invested into this encyclopedia never stops—articles and article stubs are constantly being checked by Wikipedia editors daily. Anyone can be an editor, and anyone can contribute; but not everything will be published and presented to the public’s eye (details of which will be discussed in depth later).
(In fact, if you follow the link to "postmodern society," you will discover that a Wikipedia article by that title does not exist yet. This is free reign for someone to hone their intellect and make a knowledgeable contribution.)
Wikipedia’s “public” includes speakers of French, German, Italian, and more! It is a world-wide source, constantly checked and edited by scholars world-wide. It is a product of Web 2.0 as well as today’s ever-increasing postmodern society. A source that is accessible for anyone who is anybody to contribute relevant information about today’s world? That sounds postmodern.
Just like anything good in this world, it has a history, and even Wikipedia’s history gives it credibility. I’m going to prove and demonstrate that Wikipedia is a reliable source, and a Wikipedia article cited in a bibliography is not a bad thing. I myself became a Wikipedia editor and, through my personal and intellectual experience, I will bring honor to Wikipedia’s name.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
The Postmodern Encyclopedia
Some background information...(consulting the compass)
I didn't really flesh out what I meant by the clever title of my last blog: "An Information Source for a Postmodern Society." The title is really an introduction to what my whole journey is about: exploring knowledge in a postmodern world.
What does the term postmodern even mean? Ironically, everyone seems to have their own definition of postmodernism. I think the Wikipedia article on the subject gets it write when it begins with the words "Postmodernism is a term applied to a wide-ranging set of developments in critical theory, philosophy, architecture, art, literature, and culture, which are generally characterized as either emerging from, in reaction to, or superseding, modernism." It's a broad concept! However, Wikipedia gets it even MORE right, because above the article one reads the following:
I didn't really flesh out what I meant by the clever title of my last blog: "An Information Source for a Postmodern Society." The title is really an introduction to what my whole journey is about: exploring knowledge in a postmodern world.
What does the term postmodern even mean? Ironically, everyone seems to have their own definition of postmodernism. I think the Wikipedia article on the subject gets it write when it begins with the words "Postmodernism is a term applied to a wide-ranging set of developments in critical theory, philosophy, architecture, art, literature, and culture, which are generally characterized as either emerging from, in reaction to, or superseding, modernism." It's a broad concept! However, Wikipedia gets it even MORE right, because above the article one reads the following:
"This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.
WikiProject Arts or the Arts Portal may be able to help recruit one.If a more appropriate WikiProject or portal exists, please adjust this template accordingly."
"The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page."
WikiProject Arts or the Arts Portal may be able to help recruit one.If a more appropriate WikiProject or portal exists, please adjust this template accordingly."
"The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page."
A characteristic that postmodernism (according to understanding I have developed of the concept) and Wikipedia have in common is that EVERYONE COUNTS, meaning that everybody can be heard and everybody can contribute. A helpful term for this is community. Wikipedia is a community-oriented source, much more so then the print books that are resting on the shelves of the Modern Library. The very words that appear above the article about Postmodernism prove this.
First of all, Wikipedia itself acknowledges the open-endedness of the information being presented, which actually helps to establish the credibility of this source. Something presented as absolute fact in a postmodern society can come across as close-minded and dogmatic, and Wikipedia does not give this impression at all. Wikipedia even defines itself as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."
Secondly, Wikipedia does not make the same mistake of modernism, and that is the mistake of universalizing an experience. The article acknowledges the limitidness of the information being presented, which leads to the final point...
...the talk page. The talk page is where Wikipedians can dialogue about the information that is in question. This very idea of a talk page is a part of how Wikipedia is changing the shape of knowledge. In a postmodern society, everyone can be heard. Everyone is a part of the pursuit of knowledge. Knowledge is still power, but it is no longer reserved for the elite.
This is very unlike the print books on the shelves of the Modern Library. A community on a quest for knowledge cannot interact with information of the print book like it can with Wikipedia. Print books are set in stone, linear, absolute, presented as the final word from the expert on the given subject.
However, the shape of wisdom is changing. Conversation is a critical piece of the Postmodern Encyclopedia.
An Information Source for a Postmodern Society
The day Heath Ledger died, the Wikipedia article about him was updated with the words "This article is about a person who has recently died." Underneath these words were more words: "Some information, such as that pertaining to the circumstances of the person's death and surrounding events, may change rapidly as more facts become known. In the event that this article is disruptively edited following the death of the subject, please request administrator intervention on this page." These words are gone now, and the Heath Ledger article has officially been edited to read in the past tense.
Charlton Heston is another actor who has just passed away. Those same words, as of right now, are still posted above the Wikipedia article about him.
Clicking on the words "a person who has recently died" will lead you to a comprehensive "list of notable deaths in 2008." A typical death entry includes the following information: "Name, age, country of citizenship and reason for notability, established cause of death, reference. "
The last Wikimania Conference was held in Taipei, Taiwan. "Wikimania is a regular conference for all Wikimedians that contribute to one of the many Wikimedia Foundation projects." The 2008 conference will be held in Alexandria, Egypt, at Bibliotheca Alexandrina. The official name of the conference is "Wikimania 2008 Alexandri :: Change the shape of wisdom."
Change the shape of wisdom...How appropiate, because that is exactly what Wikipedia has done, for better or for worse. I argue, for better.
If you are at all skeptical about the infamous free enclyclopedia known as wikipedia.org, this blog is for you. If you are at all inclined to believe that the world is entering a postmodern era, this blog is for you. If you were already aware of all the random facts about I gave about navigating Wikipedia at the beginning of this blog, then this blog may still be for you. If you were an active Wikipedian, then this blog is definitely for you, and I crave all feedback, positive or negative. If you have ever attended Wikimania, then please, we need to have a conversation!
The point is that Wikipedia really is changing the shape of wisdom in today's world, and many members of today's world are finding themselves in a postmodern society. This blog is going to be an account of my explorations through the World of Wikipedia. It should be an exciting and riveting journey, as I hope to prove to myself and the rest of the world that Wikipedia is the new shape of wisdom, and this is not a bad thing!
I'm already a believer, and I hope my journey convinces you to believe as well.
Charlton Heston is another actor who has just passed away. Those same words, as of right now, are still posted above the Wikipedia article about him.
Clicking on the words "a person who has recently died" will lead you to a comprehensive "list of notable deaths in 2008." A typical death entry includes the following information: "Name, age, country of citizenship and reason for notability, established cause of death, reference. "
The last Wikimania Conference was held in Taipei, Taiwan. "Wikimania is a regular conference for all Wikimedians that contribute to one of the many Wikimedia Foundation projects." The 2008 conference will be held in Alexandria, Egypt, at Bibliotheca Alexandrina. The official name of the conference is "Wikimania 2008 Alexandri :: Change the shape of wisdom."
Change the shape of wisdom...How appropiate, because that is exactly what Wikipedia has done, for better or for worse. I argue, for better.
If you are at all skeptical about the infamous free enclyclopedia known as wikipedia.org, this blog is for you. If you are at all inclined to believe that the world is entering a postmodern era, this blog is for you. If you were already aware of all the random facts about I gave about navigating Wikipedia at the beginning of this blog, then this blog may still be for you. If you were an active Wikipedian, then this blog is definitely for you, and I crave all feedback, positive or negative. If you have ever attended Wikimania, then please, we need to have a conversation!
The point is that Wikipedia really is changing the shape of wisdom in today's world, and many members of today's world are finding themselves in a postmodern society. This blog is going to be an account of my explorations through the World of Wikipedia. It should be an exciting and riveting journey, as I hope to prove to myself and the rest of the world that Wikipedia is the new shape of wisdom, and this is not a bad thing!
I'm already a believer, and I hope my journey convinces you to believe as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
