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!
Saturday, April 19, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
