filed under Cultural and Technological Observations | No Comments »
Its been ranked the tenth most popular website on the Internet and with over one and a half million articles ranging from the perils of pop culture to the overly obscure it looks sure to revolutionise the way we store, access and think about information.
Knowledge is a powerful tool. Wikipedia, or rather wikis are all about the liberalisation and consolidation of information and turning it into knowledge.
The concept of the wiki, is both new and challenging for society. I say challenging because there is there is a certain stigma surrounding Wikipedia and the reliability and credibility of its information. Please, allow me to debunk some of the myths surrounding Wikipedia.
The information is not reliable because anyone can edit it.
Wikipedia is a secondary source, as I said before, it’s a collaborative effort, the consolidation of information. If you’re claiming Wikipedia to be incorrect, you’re claiming all of its sources to be incorrect. Each Wikipedia article cites each source used to create the article at the bottom of each page.
Independent studies have shown that in fact Wikipedia is on par with the likes of Encyclopedia Britannica, each having an average of 3-4 errors per article.
Wikipedia adheres to its strict verifiability policy, which states “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth…Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources…Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.”
Wikipedia also has a strict policy, called the No Original Research policy, which states: “Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia’s co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a “novel narrative or historical interpretation.”
Additionally Wikipedia has an administration staff of around 1,000 and a moderation staff of many many more who sift through the articles and either remove or enclose in a disclaimer, statements that are in violation of Wikipedia’s policies including statements lacking sources. Anyone can edit any article and make changes, however, through the power of the wiki you’re free to make changes and any corrections, through this wonderful thing called peer review. History is not being re-written, it’s being refined.
Wikipedia is biased because anyone can edit it
According to Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle, “absolute and non-negotiable”. Wikipedia has a simple formula for neutrality.
Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By “fact” we mean “a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.” By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean “a matter which is subject to dispute.” Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense described above. Therefore, where we want to discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For example, rather than asserting, “The Beatles were the greatest band,” we can say: “Most people from Sydney in the 1960’s believe that the Beatles were the greatest band,” which can be supported by references. Articles that have bias either have the relevant content removed, or when the challenge of the bias is being challenged itself the page includes a disclaimer at the top of the page.
Wikipedia’s policy on Neutrality states: “All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors.” Content is no longer biased, but balanced.
Wikipedia is not reliable because it’s subject to vandalism and abuse
Committing vandalism is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy; once spotted it is dealt with accordingly. Wikipedia supports a policy of conflict of interest and treats vandalism in this vein COI edits are strongly discouraged. When they cause disruption to the encyclopedia in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, they may lead to accounts being blocked and embarrassment for the individuals and groups who were being promoted. It also discourages self-promotion and campaigning. Articles that make no plausible claim of notability are usually found and deleted shortly after creation.
Again, through the power of the wiki, either the administration, moderation staff, regular readers and editors and the article restored. Information is not vandalized, it’s evaluated and evaluated.
So from this we can conclude that Wikipedia indeed is a reliable, credible, and verifiable source of information and one can have no hesitation in referring to it as a source.
filed under Mysteries of the Internet | No Comments »
The idea of ‘live blogging’ an event prompted much thought in me. It seems like the most logical progression from conventional past-tense blogging.
Recently on Injury Time (a sports website I also run) we started live minute-by-minute commentary of Barclays English Premier League fixtures. In the age of Twitter, microblogging and the constant real-time stream of information that permeates us it only seems natural for the traditional blogging platform to adjust and ‘change with the times’.
So I’m wondering if the recent obsession with liveblogging is of any indication of the future in online syndication
Real-Time v Recorded
The major advantage that liveblogging offers content publishers over traditional blogging conventions is the ability to cover something as it happens. Like live televison revolutionised the media industry, so too may liveblogging.
Looking Retrospectively
However, what live television did not bring is the retrospective tone and reflective nature that allowed us to learn. These days this task is left up to documentaries and films. Whilst liveblogging may be the perfect avenue to cover events, its real-time nature does not allow us to truly reflect since the stream of information is constant.
Conclusion
Liveblogging has its pros, but it’s certainly not applicable for all content producers. Whilst it may be the hot thing going around the blogosphere at the moment, the functionality of the concept is not enough to maintain its usability in the online syndication platform.
Once all the hype disappears, it will disappear into its own niche, only used only by a select few.
filed under Cultural and Technological Observations, Mysteries of the Internet | No Comments »
The Internet has been crafted around a free and liberal philosophy – there is a emphasis on freedoms (GPL, Creative Commons, et al.)
Services are always free, the majority of websites are free to use but has the abundance of premium and quality services undermined the very value that made these services so great.
What I’m saying is that becuase the internet is built about a free model that users have become expectant of free products and free quality products
filed under Cultural and Technological Observations | No Comments »
The rate at which technology is evolving is far far greater than the rate at which the Australian legal sytem is evolving. It is much easier to rip an MP3 off a CD and post it to a file sharing server than it is to stand next to a stereo with a handheld mic and hand out bootleg cassettes
These are some of the questions raised and reasons why the law is inefficient at responding to the technological change of society
Timely nature – The law is way to slow at responding to key technological issues
- Copyright Act 1968 – It was illegal to rip a CD to MP3 in Australia till 2006
- It was also illegal to record TV for the purpose of timeshifting.
Whose jurisdiction? – Who has legal jurisdiction on the Internet
- In 2007 Yahoo was sued by a French court for having Nazi content for sale in a Yahoo.com store. The issue here is that Yahoo.com is stored and served by a US Internet Network, therefore it is under the jurisdiction of US Law, however Yahoo.com’s content can be accessed anywhere in the world.
The idea of Embedded Law – law not in terms of statues but in the technology itself.
- DVD players – It is not illegal to purchase a DVD in America and bring it to Australia but my DVD player prohibits me from doing so.
- Playstation Case 2002 – A man installed region protection circumvention hardware in his Sony Playstation and was sued by Sony. He however was found to be not guilty
- However the Copyright Act was swiftly updated in 2006 to make circumvention of these methods illegal.
Technology, and ultimately the internet has revolutionised society as we know it. The internet is no longer just linking information. It is linking people – People sharing, trading and collaborating
Revolution does not happen when society adopts new tools, a revolution happens when society adopts new behaviours. In a digital age we need to rethink a few things – copyright, authorship, commerce, ethics, privacy, governance and ultimately ourselves.
filed under Mysteries of the Internet | No Comments »
Recent trends on the internet suggest that the ‘invite-only’ has become increasingly popular and effective way of hyping a service or product.
According to The Register, Google Voice has 1.4 million users, this is despite the fact that it is an invite-only service.
The invite-only model is so effective since is it creates exclusivity which puts a premium on the service and thus drives up the value of an account.
For example, using an “invitation only” process to allow people access to the beta of GMail, Google has managed to create a certain amount of buzz and hype. The “invitation only” is a marketing gimmick that gives people the illusion of getting “exclusive” access to something new and special
There are many other reasons for exclusivity and unpublished programs, not the least of which are the ability to better control costs and program size. Even better, however, is the ability to test, innovate and ultimately create more meaningful, productive and sustainable relationships between your customers and your brand.
You only need to take a look at woeful services like MSN Spaces when it first launched just how effective an invite-only system is. MSN Spaces was open to the public and did not have any limiting mechanisms. The service bogged down unbearably, the back end couldn’t cope.
Sometimes it makes sense to me to use an invite system when there are millions of users online now all wanting a piece of tha latest action.
All the more hype… they whinge, they must want in… people see that and think this must be good and want in themselves… those people whinge too, I call it the whinge cycle.
http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2005/08/24/what-of-this-silly-little-invite-only-idea/#comment-167
filed under Cultural and Technological Observations, Mysteries of the Internet | No Comments »
The real-time flow of information is a very exciting prospect. However as we become flooded with an overwhelming quantity of low-quality information – we reach a saturation point of information, at which the constant stream (or river) of information becomes too much.
So whats the problem?
The two main culprits are RSS and Twitter.
The Internet is rapidly replacing Interaction – we spend our time letting the world know how we feel and the rest of the time figuring out how everyone else feels. This is not inherently bad, communication is a great thing. The issue only arises when the pool of content is far greater than our minds can process. One can really get lost in the monotony of hundreds of feeds and thousands of followers.
These days we are all drowing in information and it is exhausting trying to keep up with everything.
How do we solve it?
Simply, we have to filter it.
Our brains are used to dealing with information overload, our eyes and ears we naturally filter out most of what we see and hear without even thinking about it.
The idea of filtering is not entirely new however, Google Reader has long had a ‘Sort by magic’ feature which will display what Google arbitrarily categorises as relevant. Similarly a recent Facebook update has introduced the concept of the news feed and live feed – the news feed is a filtered summary of the day.
I’ve come to the conclusion that the “always on” culture fills ones head with a clutter of fairly unimportant things – driving a “continuous partial attention” mode that can potentially block the ability to see the bigger picture, or the main strands of any issue.
http://broadstuff.com/archives/1655-Going-without-Comms-to-get-a-better-connection.html
filed under Mysteries of the Internet | No Comments »
So much of success relies in timing doesn’t it?
The secret to great comedy is timing, the secret to a great tackle is timing, and likewise the secret to great success is timing.
Industries boom and bust constantly and riding the wave of success is only a matter of timing.
So if we want to be successful, we need to ensure that we time our actions correctly. Whilst there is no right of wrong way to do so, a little research goes very far.
filed under Cultural and Technological Observations, Mysteries of the Internet | No Comments »
In 2006 on an episode of The Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert proclaimed his neologism wikiality.
Colbert defined wikiality as “truth by consensus” (rather than fact), modeled after the approval-by-consensus format of Wikipedia.
According to Stephen Colbert, together “we can all create a reality that we all can agree on; the reality that we just agreed on. (Thanks Wikipedia!)
Apart from the obvious comical value of the word, the underlying philosophy of it is one of great danger.
Colbert’s concept of wikiality is based upon the philosophy of conensus reality.
Consensus reality is the set or totality of what is believed to be real, the “reality” accepted by the majority of individuals in a given place or at a given time.
Essentially consensus is simply is a malleable framework in which perceptions are both shaped and composed.The issue here is that fact, truth and justice and reality all become voluntary and malleable. Whilst this puts fact in the hands of the masses, is that what we really want ?
A poster on Everything2.com sums it up rather eloquentlty ,
That presents an interesting circular reinforcement scenario. The world is what the majority believes it to be, but the majority believes that way because that’s the world they see around them.
I think there’s at least some truth in this. While our beliefs may not be able to change the physical (though they may), we do in fact affect society with our beliefs. The majority makes the rules, and then convinces others that’s how it’s supposed to be.
filed under Cultural and Technological Observations, Mysteries of the Internet | No Comments »
With the volatile nature of technology things are constantly becomming more faster, portable and smaller and apparently so is your information!
Your task is to communicate everything you know to everyone in the world but you may only do so using 140 characters. The summarising starts now!
“Oh no!” I think to myself
You will be assessed on how well you condense the depths of your knowledge and on the extent of your awareness of cultural and social context
“Umm..” I ponder mercilessly
Many consider Micro Blogging to be to blogs what Instand Messaging was Email. Different, Faster, and is a more Disposable form of Self- Publishing. But the way I see it, the twitterisation of society is only part of a greater social movement. We are becoming a society so afflicted by time that we value summary over exposition.
Whilst smaller may not necesserily better it is certainly is alot less easier to read. The low-comittment levels for both publisher and reader drive usership up. So I guess that summary is the way for now?
On another note, recently, I stumbled onto a blog post “Could this be a factor in the allure of microblogs?”
Nav Dhami writes:
Came across this really interesting study by Princeton psychologist Emily Pronin and Harvard’s Daniel Wegner on a link between situations that make you think fast and feelings of elation, power and creativity.
However, the rush of positive feelings is seen only when the brisk thinking is varied; repetitive thoughts instead cause anxiety.
Made me wonder if this could partly explain the rapid growth of microblogs such as Twitter, vis-a-vis ‘slower’ social media such as blogs. My ‘Tweets’ are usually posted in relatively short bursts of activity, and I suspect this may be the case with most other microbloggers.
Every time I post 8-10 Tweets in one session, the frenetic activity does leave me with a palpable dopamine surge.
« older entries
