I think its pretty understood that I am a large proponent of freedom of speech and everyone deserves to voice their own opinion. But I do think that its important that we recognize that not everyone is right all the time. In terms of the Wikipedia craze that was discussed in the video, theres a lot of information that people put out on the internet that is complete crap. Not everyone has a light on in the attic and I'm not blaming them for it but it is something that we have to acknowledge. Not everyone has the knowledge and insight to write credible information that people can truly believe in. I know that I'm not a credible source for information in a ton of different areas. I think that Wikipedia really trusted the whole person in providing information that they knew a ton about. I mean, as Mr. Powazek talked about how Wikipedia had to create a program that red flags a ton of information that was either not appropriate or even simply wrong information. I think that puts a lot of trust into the human being about being honest. I don't know about you but I don't trust that many people to be honest. So I guess what I'm really thinking about is whether or not people deserve a site like Wikipedia. I don't think they do.
Like all of us we maintain our blogs for class and some of us for the fun of it but when someone comes onto my blog they understand that this is my opinion and it might not be as credible as they might hope. I'm not LA Times or US WEEKLY. I'm a dumb college kid with an opinion. I reserve the right to speak my mind but I don't believe that informational sites like Wikipedia should be available for anyone to put their 2 cents in. It should be strictly informational but it not always is. I think Wikipedia is a great idea but I do believe that there should only be certain people who are able to contribute to the site. Opinion is very different from facts and as writer or blogger its important to maintain that distinction. Not everyone does. To me its very similar the television news. Is that really all fact and not bias at all? I don't think so. Where am I supposed to get facts and unbiased information? I have yet to find a place that gives me that. I don't totally trust everything I read because I have no idea who's writes it and what their intentions are. I think a lot of our sources of information like Yahoo and Google as well as various other sources have some greater intentions than we know. They have the opportunity to manipulate anyone and make them feel differently about certain issues. Everyone has a boss and everyone is expected to produce certain work. So I am not totally sold on places like Wikipedia and Yahoo and all that. I take it with a grain of salt because you just never know. I do my best to sort out what I think is crap and what seems sketchy to me but there's no way to know if someone is placing information that isn't totally credible into my Yahoo feed. Especially on issues that have to do with Politics especially the War in Iraq and Afghanistan. The information that comes home to us isn't the whole story and everyone knows that. I'm sure the information that normally does come out is for a reason, most likely to create a type of perspective on the war or whatever.
Back during World War I, Woodrow Wilson created a Committee of Public Information and that was strictly to provide the nation with a set of political information to build a specific moral and support for the war so that the population would back the government's involvement. I don't agree with holding information when it comes to something like the war is of this magnitude. I suppose that the wars that we get involved in are much greater than myself and have a drastic effect on the world that I know little about. But it is a scary feeling not knowing whether or not the things you hear from your school, your government, your parents are true at all. Sites like Wikipedia try to give us credible information on many things but I'm just not ready to accept all of that stuff as fact. I'll stick to the cliche of "don't believe everything you hear".
Skepticism is a good thing. We must always try to be as informed as possible about our sources and make our opinions accordingly. That said, I'm not sure you really paid attention to Lih. I would have liked a more reasoned response to precise points he made. Instead, this seemed like a very emotional reaction to an issue you haven't really studied. Wikipedia's whole point is to be objective, not opinionated. It's the opposite of blogging. Lih said that it works not in theory but in practice. How do you counter that statement? And who is this Powazek you refer to?
ReplyDeleteYou know after reading this a few times I agree with you. I think I got in the zone and kind of went off on a tangent that strayed away from what Lih was really talking about. I notice that I have a tendency to do that every once in a while. I do understand that it is supposed to be objective, but I do not always believe that all the information, or lack there of, is without an agenda at times. I like Wikipedia and use it frequently, for mere enjoyment and not any serious source for information. I agree that it is something that is more effective in practice but I do not believe that it is fool proof. And in reference to the Powazek I apologize I think I zoned out and I meant to put Lih. I will proof read more closely in the future.
ReplyDelete