You just got “served”

The subject  and article I chose was called “Serve (tennis)”. The article entailed the point of the serve, the types of service, as well as how to hit certain serves. Looking through the statistics of the article itself, it showed that it was started in 2005 and having the latest update yesterday (as of feb 15,  2014). As far as how many people have seen the article it shows fewer than 30 watchers, but well over 700 edits by 431 editors. While looking through the edits the biggest arguments of editing are made because of new records. This makes sense since records are constantly being broken and one upped. Using this article as a test page, I can agree that Wikipedia (references mostly) can be used for a source of collective intelligence. Having played tennis for the past 13 years, and teaching it for the past six years  I can testify that all of the information provided is correct. Although not all pages are as simple as this topic, from all the articles I have seen there seems to be quite accurate information across the board. With Wikipedia being an web encyclopedia with the knowledge  of the community those with vast knowledge on the subject have an opportunity to share and showcase it to the public. As Henry Jenkins said in his second article, “Wikipedia invites youth to imagine what it might mean to consider themselves as experts on some small corner of the universe. As they collect and communicate what they know, they are forced to think of themselves writing to a public. This is no longer about finding the right answer to get a grade on an assignment but producing credible information that others can count upon when they deploy it in some other real world context.” By being forced into putting ones best onto the internet the information provided can be counted on that much more. Beyond the desire to provide helpful information to others, by placing ones information in the open it allows others to critique and force you to prove all facts and allegations. With posts a simple or straightforward such as the one with tennis serves, the facts are hard to dispute as they have been around for quite some while and can be easily trusted by most. With much more complex articles such as certain physics or concepts of poems where interpretation is necessary, articles may be having many more arguments and using the references rather than the actual information itself is a must.

 

Works Cited:

“Serve(tennis).Wikimedia Foundation. Web. 13 February 2014.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serve_(tennis))

Jenkins, Henry. “WHAT WIKIPEDIA CAN TEACH US ABOUT THE NEW MEDIA LITERACIES (Part one)”.  Web log post. Confessions of an AcaFan. N.p., 27 June 2007. Web. 13 February 2014. Doc1

Advertisements

One comment on “You just got “served”

  1. The post does a good job of narrowing down a broad topic, like tennis, into something you can more thoroughly analyze. The post also does a good job describing why this topic is a good case study and why you are an expert on the topic. The post could be improved by defining collective intelligence and introducing the title of Jenkins’ article for any readers who might not already be familiar with the piece. This would also provide context for some of the arguments made in the post that aren’t as clear because the reader might not understand what they are responding to. Dividing up your blog post into paragraphs organized by topic can improve the flow of the post and can help the reader follow your main ideas. Utilizing images could have improved the post by providing visual evidence for your arguments.

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