Aside

Angel Valencia

Is Wikipedia reliable? Is it considered a source? Is Wikipedia good or bad? Both? A lot of questions arise when it comes to Wikipedia. Many experts will say Wikipedia is not reliable, others say its just a quick starting point for research. But overall, can we trust the information that’s put on Wikipedia by “average people”? That’s one, if not the main question presented by the 2-parted article: Henry Jenkins’ “What Wikipedia Can Teach Us About New Media Literacies.”

The Wikipedia article I selected was Comedy Central’s Tosh.0. The show is considered controversial, shocking, and funny. Despite it’s infamous comedy style, the show is one of the most watched shows among adults (18-49) the night its aired, averaging millions of viewers (Tosh.0). I chose this page because of its history involving Wikipedia. Jenkins talks about collective intelligence, “the ability to pool knowledge and compare notes with others towards a common goal” (Jenkins). Just like the Tosh.0 page and others, people really do work together on Wikipedia to put together information for the common good. For example, the Tosh.0 page has had about 959 revisions, and 382 by top ten users. It averages about 16 edits a month, a slow average particular due to the page being locked to some. Most are minor, but Wikipedia and users do a good job at keeping the information relevant and accurate. Despite a control in user activity with the page, there’s can still be questions raised on true accuracy. 

Image

 

Image

 

Is the information on Wikipedia put by people assumed to be correct 100% of the time? One can argue that not all information is right. Jenkins raises the question by stating, “There are legitimate concerns about the credibility of online information and the breakdown of traditional notions of expertise which should be debated.”(Jenkins) The statement refers to concern of the younger generation not questioning the source of Wikipedia; instead, they rely on it, or have too much “faith” in it. Because a lot of non-scholarly experts write Wikipedia pages, it’s hard trust in its accuracy. I bring up this point because Tosh.0 has had a history with Wikipedia. In 2010, Daniel Tosh told his viewers to change up a “boring page” for the show, causing quite a stir. The page was severely vandalized for comical reasons, resulting in a lockdown for the page, and an “apology” by Daniel to Wikipedia (Wikipedia).

Image

 

Just like this page, if a student, referred by Jenkins, were to stumble upon wrong information on the page, would they question it? If a source of information can be altered and revised in a non-accurate way, is it still a true source of information? Yes and No. Its no surprise Wikipedia has suffered a lot of vandalism misfortune with its information. However, Wikipedia does its best to stop this kind of activity. For example it will lock up pages, so only a selected few can edit them. Such is the case with the Tosh.0 Wikipedia page that is still locked to the unregistered to this day. It is important to monitor activity on Wikipedia, since it is a source of information used by a lot of people. Even If the information is not scholarly, it is still information put together by people” towards a common goal.” Overall, Information should be questioned with Wikipedia, although it’s a still a good source for general knowledge, and not super-detailed, super-accurate knowledge.

 Image

Work Cited:

 Jenkins, Henry. “WHAT WIKIPEDIA CAN TEACH US ABOUT THE NEW MEDIA LITERACIES (PART ONE).” Confessions of an AcaFan. N.p., 26 June 2007. Web. 14 Feb. 2014.

 “Tosh.0.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 16 Feb. 2014.

 “Wikipedia in Culture.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 16 Feb. 2014.

Advertisements

One comment on “

  1. Good job annotating images to make them more useful to your reader—don’t forget to tie in your images to the text though, so the images feel more relevant to the post and so the reader doesn’t have to do too much analysis without guidance. The post also does a good job of introducing Jenkins and his article and defining collective intelligence early on so the reader can apply that term and context to the content of your post. The content of the post ties in well to the theme of the assignment, making it a great choice, and the post clearly and concisely lays out the conflict. This conflict might be a good lead in for the post in the introduction, especially since the current introduction brings up some of the main ideas of the assignment but in a more generic way—without the superfluous parts of the current intro, the post would have more space to discuss the conflict in the context of Jenkin’s article (which is a really interesting idea!).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s