...is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest coordinated with Columbia University and New York University students, aimed at illustrating Wikipedia articles covering the wondrous sights on the island of Manhattan.
The student participants will compete to photograph as many sites as possible from a list of goals whose articles lack photographs, or that are missing certain essential photographs.
The event will be held on Friday April 4, and will run from 11:30 AM/noon to 11 PM/midnight. Everyone will meet up and check in at the two starting points at noon, and after a day of subways, street rambles, photography and free culture goodness, the night will conclude with a party back at Columbia. For more info go here or here
Gotta love Wikipedia!
Showing posts with label wikipedia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wikipedia. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Wikipedia and Information Overload
In the epilogue, Neil Postman describes how humans were able to effectively find new ways to access and store information, but in doing so, “…created a new problem never experienced before: information glut, information incoherence, information meaninglessness” (390). In some ways, I agree with this statement, especially when we consider the Internet and the huge amount of information it provides. Lance Strate recently posted an article about how the print form of encyclopedias is gradually becoming obsolete, being replaced with online versions or Wikipedia. But going along with Postman’s statement, Wikipedia shows how just too much information about an endless amount of topics can eventually lead to meaninglessness or triviality. A recent article discusses the fate of Wikipedia:
“…Wikipedia is facing an identity crisis as it is torn between two alternative futures. It can either strive to encompass every aspect of human knowledge, no matter how trivial; or it can adopt a more stringent editorial policy and ban articles on trivial subjects, in the hope that this will enhance its reputation as a trustworthy and credible reference source.” (from "The battle for Wikipedia's soul")
Wikipedia, being open to the public, is causing a large amount of trivial information, which I suppose it what Postman would consider, “disconnected from theory, meaning, and purpose” (390) (the author of the article gives the example of how there are more articles that are more in depth about Pokemon characters than a topic that could be more meaningful and worth learning about, such as the Solidarity movement in Poland). I can see why some consider it a problem. There is just so much information on the Internet that probably, to the majority of people, would seem useless and when an information source like Wikipedia is overloaded with generally pointless information that means nothing to them (unless maybe if they’re a fan of something), the value of it as something that could help people is lowered. Though on the other hand, perhaps all of this information helps to build an information source of the kind of culture that humans have (even if it might seem useless). Then again, maybe it’s similar to how news stations might focus more on celebrity news than what is going on in the world.
Another point that Postman mentions is how people who enjoy virtual reality, communicating with others electronically, and watching television “refuse to acknowledge what their real problem is—respectively, boringness, friendlessness, thoughtlessness” (391). This is true in some ways; he even says that it is because these activities, with the help of technology, do nothing to help “touch life’s deepest problems” (391). Though I think technology has helped create new ways of communication that were not possible in the past. In Gary Gumpert and Susan J. Drucker’s essay, “From Locomotion to Telecommunication, or Paths of Safety, Streets of Gore,” they say that the Internet is considered “more secure” and “nonthreatening” (35), which is true, considering also the amount of anonymity it can provide, which allows people to perhaps interact in ways they would not in real life. It lets us interact with people across the world that we would probably never meet without the Internet (though I guess one could travel and interact with people), and allows spontaneous interaction and possibly gain knowledge about another culture but interacting with them. In John M. Phelan’s chapter, “CyberWalden: The Online Psychology of Politics and Culture,” he says, “Distance apart, cyberspace is a humanizing device for creating a kind of ersatz office/pub/common room/ public square area for those deprived, rather cruelly, of one or more versions of the real thing” (52) It seems that many of the things the authors in these chapters say is putting cyberspace and the Internet in a negative light. Perhaps they are emphasizing that even though these technologies can provide so much interaction and information, interactions we have with people face-to-face and performing activities with other people are just as important in shaping the way that humans live.
“…Wikipedia is facing an identity crisis as it is torn between two alternative futures. It can either strive to encompass every aspect of human knowledge, no matter how trivial; or it can adopt a more stringent editorial policy and ban articles on trivial subjects, in the hope that this will enhance its reputation as a trustworthy and credible reference source.” (from "The battle for Wikipedia's soul")
Wikipedia, being open to the public, is causing a large amount of trivial information, which I suppose it what Postman would consider, “disconnected from theory, meaning, and purpose” (390) (the author of the article gives the example of how there are more articles that are more in depth about Pokemon characters than a topic that could be more meaningful and worth learning about, such as the Solidarity movement in Poland). I can see why some consider it a problem. There is just so much information on the Internet that probably, to the majority of people, would seem useless and when an information source like Wikipedia is overloaded with generally pointless information that means nothing to them (unless maybe if they’re a fan of something), the value of it as something that could help people is lowered. Though on the other hand, perhaps all of this information helps to build an information source of the kind of culture that humans have (even if it might seem useless). Then again, maybe it’s similar to how news stations might focus more on celebrity news than what is going on in the world.
Another point that Postman mentions is how people who enjoy virtual reality, communicating with others electronically, and watching television “refuse to acknowledge what their real problem is—respectively, boringness, friendlessness, thoughtlessness” (391). This is true in some ways; he even says that it is because these activities, with the help of technology, do nothing to help “touch life’s deepest problems” (391). Though I think technology has helped create new ways of communication that were not possible in the past. In Gary Gumpert and Susan J. Drucker’s essay, “From Locomotion to Telecommunication, or Paths of Safety, Streets of Gore,” they say that the Internet is considered “more secure” and “nonthreatening” (35), which is true, considering also the amount of anonymity it can provide, which allows people to perhaps interact in ways they would not in real life. It lets us interact with people across the world that we would probably never meet without the Internet (though I guess one could travel and interact with people), and allows spontaneous interaction and possibly gain knowledge about another culture but interacting with them. In John M. Phelan’s chapter, “CyberWalden: The Online Psychology of Politics and Culture,” he says, “Distance apart, cyberspace is a humanizing device for creating a kind of ersatz office/pub/common room/ public square area for those deprived, rather cruelly, of one or more versions of the real thing” (52) It seems that many of the things the authors in these chapters say is putting cyberspace and the Internet in a negative light. Perhaps they are emphasizing that even though these technologies can provide so much interaction and information, interactions we have with people face-to-face and performing activities with other people are just as important in shaping the way that humans live.
Labels:
Gary Gumpert,
John M. Phelan,
Neil Postman,
Susan J. Drucker,
wikipedia
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Monday, February 4, 2008
Wall Street Journal vs. Salon
Camille Paglia makes some interesting observations in her piece "Dispatches From the New Frontier: Writing for the Internet." She notes that internet writing is more visual than verbal. I find this completely untrue. Certainly the visual style of the page and text are important when I determine the value of a web page. However, nothing to me is more important than the actual writing. I don't really case if the author actively chooses "vocabulary that looks interesting on the page ... juxtaposing blunt Anglo-Saxon nouns and high actions verbs with polysyllabic Greco-Roman abstractions" (pg. 271). I mean honestly, what does that even mean? I want the text I read to have substance and value, not to "look cool."
Paglia also notes how her writing for the Wall Street Journal differs from her own writings for Slate. I agree that samples from both will differ greatly in style and tone, but I don't think its the medium that determines these differences. I believe its the audience. The people reading the Wall Street Journal want a voice that is "somber" and "organized." If I'm looking for a sound business advice I really wouldn't want to read a report that read like most blogs on the internet. The opposite is also true, if I was looking for an article about the most recent episode of Lost, I would prefer if it didn't contain words I'd need to look up in a dictionary.
I do think Paglia is spot on with her analysis of the Princess Diana tragedy. Old media is simply unable to compete with the lightning fast ability of the internet to respond to current events. I recall hearing stories of most Londoners getting their information from Wikipedia after the 7/7 bombings. The information monopoly that newspapers and book publishers held is being subverted by those with no want of money or fame.
Paglia also notes how her writing for the Wall Street Journal differs from her own writings for Slate. I agree that samples from both will differ greatly in style and tone, but I don't think its the medium that determines these differences. I believe its the audience. The people reading the Wall Street Journal want a voice that is "somber" and "organized." If I'm looking for a sound business advice I really wouldn't want to read a report that read like most blogs on the internet. The opposite is also true, if I was looking for an article about the most recent episode of Lost, I would prefer if it didn't contain words I'd need to look up in a dictionary.
I do think Paglia is spot on with her analysis of the Princess Diana tragedy. Old media is simply unable to compete with the lightning fast ability of the internet to respond to current events. I recall hearing stories of most Londoners getting their information from Wikipedia after the 7/7 bombings. The information monopoly that newspapers and book publishers held is being subverted by those with no want of money or fame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)