I used to rely Wikipedia all the time. I loved it and thought it was a quick and easy way to find the information that I needed for school assignments. I still use it today, but not nearly as much. I remember in high school some teachers would specify that we should NOT use wikipedia because it wasn't a reliable source. They would say that since anyone can edit the information, it can't all be accepted as true. I had held this belief until the video told me that nothing is posted on wikipedia before the "community" of core workers approves it. I was also suprised that they save every version of each page so that they can have it ready to replace vandalism or inaccuracy. It makes wikipedia seem completely reliable to me now and I'm eager to use it more often.
The creation of Wikipedia has made writing in electronic environments even more remarkable and advanced. Wikipedia can be viewed and even edited on mobile devices and makes information readily avaiable at all times.
The writing that occurs in a blog is much more casual and versatile than the writing in a wiki. A wiki needs to be written in a more formal voice and is viewed as a source of information. A wiki is meant to be a recreated book or information source, while a blog is typically an individual's thoughts and opinions. I personally feel like it's okay if a blog isn't completely reliable, because people don't use blogs as serious resources, however, a wiki can be used and cited for academic purposes.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment