I found that wikipedia mostly differed from Heim and Woolley by the way wikipedia explained certain terms. Unlike Woolley, the wiki gave a seemingly full definition of what cyberspace actually was (even though with terms like 'metaphoric abstraction', it leaves it somewhat opened to interpretation). Woolley instead spent most of his time dancing around the term and not dishing out a definition. He somehow managed to write an interesting and intricate essay about cyberspace without telling the reader what it actually was.
Through reading the work by Michael Heim, I felt as though I had a stronger grasp of what exactly virtual reality was. His indepth examples (the three "I"s, CAVE, HMD's, etc) made me truly see what virtual reality was. The piece posted at wikipedia was a well and articulated article, but it lacked the flow and explanation that Heim filled his essay with.
Also, I find myself trusting Heim and Woolley's essays much more than wikipedia. With Heim and Woolley, it was finalized. It was sent off to the editor, published and placed upon a shelf in a small colorful bookstore. Whatever ideas expressed by Heim and Woolley can not be changed. It's finalized in those glossy pages (unless they write another essay and update their thoughts). Unlike in wikipedia, sometimes one individual can change what is stated on the page. Even though on some wikis, only members of that particular group could edit its content, lets face it: it's the Internet. And if you're skilled enough in the ever popular and loving hacking business, you too can make a page state: "Virtual reality was created by Orlando Bloom. It took him three days in the kitchen to do so. (the extra day was needed when he stopped to try and figure out the age old question of how many licks it really took to get to the center of that darn Tootsie Pop. The Wise Owl didn't answer his phone call.)"
posted by Nadia at 10:36 PM
2 Comments:
"Also, I find myself trusting Heim and Woolley's essays much more than wikipedia."
As noted in Ryan's comments, I found that they (Wikipedia) have a fact checking team. A book is great but so is the internet. While I will always use a book alone for citing, a website can offer some new, modern views. Besides would a 12 year old have the vocab. that is on Wikipedia?
7:14 AM
So yeah we are definitely having a discussion about how you know whether you can trust what you read on the net.
I am just going to take this opportunity to say what makes you think you can trust what you read in books? Uh . . .there is the point that you raise Nadia, that books are "finished' -- and that means they stay as they are and that they can be checked out, and after they have been around for a while you have some idea about what a number of people have said about them. But doesn't reputation and review and oversee interent content as well?
And about whether people hack in or misrepresent things -- I was talking to a fellow who is doing a study for a phd on the topic of agorophobia (people who are afraid to leave their homes). His data has all been collected from the internet -- through going to chat spaces/forums, putting information newsgroups, etc and asking if people would like to participate in his study. I asked him what made him think he could trust his data -- since he had no real "proof"(no doctors records, nodocumentation of any kinds) that these people were even agorophobics. They could all be bored internet cruisers who thought it would be funny to mess with his data. He said he thought that ALL of his data were good -- because it would take one motivated person to get through all his interviews & etc.
So there you have it -- for most sites to be messed with -- it takes time & energy and there will need to be a payoff of some sort. And even when a data base gets messed with -- if a large group of people are interested in it -- the mischief is likely to be discovered. So what is it that makes us so mistrust collaborative knowledge? Is it that we don't believe that "ordinary" people, together, are as smart as a "scholar" -- or an expert? (For example, I would not want any random group of people I happened to be stuck in traffic with on the NJturnpike to fix my car, I would rathe go to a mechanic.) But then, on the internet, it is not REALLY random people who create wikipedia entries, or who create websites -- it is people with motivation and interest with respect to a particular topic => experts. Self proclaimed, but experts just the same. Often people with "hands on" experience with respect to a topic.
So is this a rant yet?
11:19 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home