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.

The IPod: From New to Old

Angel Valencia

The IPod is considered the greatest music player to exist: Revolutionary, dominant, and untouchable. But is it the same classic, timeless device that swept the world away? In Tom Gunning’s essay, Re-Newing Old Technologies, we explore just that. The IPod has been existent for about 13 years. During this the beginning of the 2000s, the market was dominated by large cameras, camcorders, and other larger devices. Apple, along with Steve Jobs, demanded a newer, smaller, faster device with easy user interface (Wikipedia). The IPod was born. When launched, it came with a booming advertising campaign of commercials, posters, referred as  “thousands of songs in your pocket.” Changing the music industry, digital media, user interface, and sales, the IPod made its mark. Demand was high, and sales even higher. But after many years, has the IPod declined in production, demand, and sales? With newer, never-ending, and eye-catching technology coming out, the IPod has lost its spark. Tom Gunning helps to assist our understanding of old media in the modern world of today. Onians Four Stages of Amazement (Gunning 41) can explain the IPod’s early success. “A striking experience, usually visual, but sometimes aural” describes the IPods unveiling: a new, shiny device that changes music portability. “A consequent physical paralysis” describes users physically attachment to their device. “A reaction which results in something being learned” means the IPod’s demand and success resulting in teaching the world an easier way to listen to music. “ A new action” results in newer IPod’s, newer looks, functions and sizes. Four Stages of Amazement may conclude IPod success. However, the IPod’s decline can be hinted in Ginning’s first thoughts. Gunning mentions how old technology had “become part of a nearly invisible everyday life of habit and routine” (Gunning 39). The IPod, when new, was the only device doing what it was doing. It was portable, interactive, and successful. Now, in the modern world, The IPod has been lost and forgotten. New technology can do anything the IPod can do, and more. Portable tablets, smart phones, Laptops have made the IPod invisible. For example, the IPod is literally built into the iPhone. So why would the world need an IPod today? Music is more portable now than ever before, so the IPod has since been forgotten. The world of habit and technology advancement has made the IPod old. With my meme, I incorporate less on the IPod’s impact and decline, but more on what it did it the world. Parents and teachers believed IPods consumed us, society believed it the IPod was a distraction, yet all the IPod did improve the way we listen to music. That’s why it was successful, that’s why the IPod dominated. It was because it gave the world a device to listen and carry music in a way it couldn’t do before. From new to old, the IPod has still made its mark in history.

 

Work Cited:

Gunning, Tom. “Re-Newing Old Technologies: Astonishment, Second Nature, and the Uncanny in Technology from the Previous Turn-of-the-Century.” In D. Thorburn and H. Jenkins (eds). Rethinking Media Change: The Aesthetics of Transition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp 39-60.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPodImage

By desartist