hmmm... difficult one. I love using Wikipedia, it always explains terms in a way I can understand. Sometimes the information is a little over my head but generally I find the site very useful. The problem is however, a lack of authority. The information sounds very authoritative but the nature of wiki is that anyone can add or edit any explanation, so essentially what you are seeing is a collection of opinions and interpretations, and you have very little scope to find out where these opinions and interpretations come from. So how do you know if what you are reading is true or not?
On the other hand however, just because a book has an author, does not mean that whatever is said in that book is anything more than opinion and interpretation. So what makes a book more authoritative than a blog or something? The founder of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales says on the site that they have a policy to include all points of view, and the contributors must remain as neutral as possible. This is all good and well on paper but in practice it is a bit different. A person's definition of something may clash severly with someone else's definition without menaing to have encited different points of view.
However, it's almost a fact that many people use the internet for their research for projects and essays. I know that goole and Wikipedia are my first ports of call when starting a project. So these websites have a raher large responsibility to provide accurate and fair information.
I seems like a catch 22 situation: everyone can have their say but what who has the final say???
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment