Blogs and wikis are similar in that they both communicate information by either a single individual, a consultative group, or a series of individuals. Even though blogs are mostly advertised as the kind published by a single person, there are many instances in real life where a group of people post in one blog and often sign the specific individual's name on the said post.
Nevertheless, the differences are apparent: a blog is more controlled but restricted in terms of the public's influence and a wiki is more lenient but susceptible to an internet predator's touch or an irresponsible editor. But both help connect individuals all over the world and help in the distribution of information with a simple click. In today's networked world, it's important people are able to reach information in an array of mediums and people have the ability to read each other's voices with ease. It's especially important to hear more voices and opinions, more standpoints and perspectives than the ones you only agree with, allowing for a more empathetic world.
Blogs have a lot of appeal to them - especially to the blogger's point of view as they can control the information that is seen in the public. It's even better from a business perspective, as they can advertise their products and showcase their business under a good light. In a more cynical perspective, a firm also has the ability to control what is said in the comments sector of the blog. For example, paying for good feedback or comments on their blog to thwart incoming visitors of the site.
However, in Michael Wilson's "Brooklyn Blog Helps Lead to Drug Raid" he reports a blog called "Bay Ridge Talk" had consecutive posts concerning the activities in their general neighborhood. The numerous reports helped the police and the community to band together and ward off the drug activities ongoing in their neighborhood. The criminals involved often came off as a public nuisance to most of the neighbors and after they had been arrested, much of them felt a heavyweight had been lifted off their shoulders. In such cases, blogs like Bay Ridge Talk act as forums for relevant communities; the owner still has the power to remove posts if they wish, but evidently, that's not the case in this article but such power is necessary to ward off spammers or unwanted, malicious content. In such cases, blogs can be used as a collaboration in a community to not only distribute information with one another but also warn each other of local activity in their neighborhood.
Similarly, Wikis are created by the people, for the people. However, with that much freedom comes inevitable consequence -- the possibility of this power going into the wrong hands. Hence, as we grow, many teachers advise students not to cite or read off of Wikipedia as their prime source of information, as teachers are wary of the reliability of the information posted there. However, as dangerously lenient as wikis seem, they've recently made some changes, as they recognize the weight of responsibility they carry as a site often visited by people looking into information.
In Noam Cohen's "Wikipedia to Limit Changes to Articles on People," he talks about a new feature that will be implemented called "flagged revisions," in which it will "require that an experienced volunteer editor for Wikipedia sign off on any change made by the public before it can go live." In John D. Sutter's "Wikipedia: No longer the Wild West?" he states Wikipedia will be "assigning editors to some of its entries. These trusted volunteers likely would have to approve public edits before they're published to English-language stories about living people." Both articles were posted in 2009, but nevertheless, it does highlight Wikipedia acknowledging the responsibility that comes with its influence on the world. Even with these changes, perhaps unlike a blog, the purpose of a Wikipedia is to distribute information that is accurate, but not necessarily pleasant. As in, the information does not need to speak kindly about the subject, it only needs to be accurate. I don't think these changes deter Wikipedia from its original intent or goal. Simply put, the purpose of Wikipedia's or Wikis, in general, is to distribute accurate information; if there needs to be a soft wall to prevent vandalism, slander, or misinformation of a public figure, organization, and such - so be it.
It's especially hard to think of something "new" that can be done with a wiki, as 55.1% of the world population has access to the internet. Many ideas have already been attempted, so as a disclaimer, my suggestion may have already been done without my knowledge:
Since it's more relevant to my hobbies, I'd recommend a wiki page listing out all the usernames and 'crimes' art thefts, tracers, and scammers that have wronged commissioners and other artists in the community. This can be quite helpful, even on a global scale, as their social media handles can also be linked in this wiki page. In addition, references would especially be needed - and from my experience, people do not hold back with evidence in screenshots and chat logs to support their claims. GIFs are even used to prove acts of tracing (in which an artist traces over another artists' work and makes some changes and claims it as their own). Lots of issues occur in an international level as well, since I've seen problems going on with a Japanese artist accusing an artist in California for deliberately "copying their style." (Which, mind you, is another entire ordeal of its own, both in the accusation itself and the nature of the accusation.)
In retrospect, I can also see how this idea might lead to a witch hunt for people who make it to this list. So the wiki should emphasize not attacking this user, but just avoid doing business with said user or reporting the user for their proven wrongdoings. (And if you fancy watching YouTube channels that especially cater to delivering the "tea," you'll know that most of these channels often begin their video with a disclaimer stating not to attack the subject of the video.)
Brooklyn Blog Helps Lead to Drug Raid By MICHAEL WILSON The New York Times June 26, 2008 available at:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/nyregion/26bayridge.html
"Wikipedia to Limit Changes to Articles on People" by Noam Cohen, The New York Times, August 24, 2009. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/technology/internet/25wikipedia.html?_r=1
Wikipedia: No longer the Wild West? by John D. Sutter, CNN.com/technology, August 26, 2009. Available at http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/08/26/wikipedia.editors/index.html
Hey Nicole!
ReplyDeleteI'm sure everyone can relate to the point you brought up in respect to teacher's not recommending Wikipedia as a source of information. Thinking back, I know I for one was not pleased with this ban on wikis as they were usually one of the first pages to show up on Google searches. However, like you mentioned, wikis faced a serious accuracy problem wholly due to the fact that anyone could edit it as they so desired, so can we really blame the teachers? In fact, in Sutter's article, he had quoted the words of Caterina Fake (founder of Flickr) which I find to be immensely resonating: "It would basically be like a wall of graffiti in a bathroom." As such, I also am a fan of this added veil of vandalism protection and prevention. Alternatively, since wikis have a reference page at the bottom, more often than not some of these sites tend to actually have a reputation for being credible, so pearl growing can definitely thrive in this circumstance.
About your wiki idea: I can tell you are passionate about art! Unfortunately, I likewise have witnessed an artist's hard work being re-posted (say, on Instagram) by other users with their watermark cropped out and no credit in sight. To this extent, I can see your proposal being useful, but I appreciate your added clarification in attempting to make this a learning moment and not a witch hunt!
Hi Nicole, As a student I have always disliked teachers not allowing students to cite from Wikipedia but after working on the class Wiki I understand it now. It is so easy to manipulate, add, and remove information on there and is not as strong of a reliable source.
ReplyDelete