Thursday, April 7, 2011

Something we didn't discuss yet

We haven't spent a lot of time discussing the role of wikis as a new media tool, other than looking at Wikileaks briefly. Candidates for office seem to be largely reactive, making sure false information doesn't appear on their bios. Once in office, however, some of them are bending the rules - staffers changing information to make their bosses look better.

4 comments:

  1. I love wikipedia. I find it a quick, convenient way to find information about whatever it is i am interested in. However, knowing that anyone can edit a page, i sometimes question the accuracy of wikis. I think people who read wikipedia a lot should take what they read with a grain of salt.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It doesn't sound like an easy problem to solve. Our president and vice president have apparently both changed information on their wiki pages. I think unless there are "Nixon-style" tapes which expose the actual candidate asking someone to alter their page , that we can treat this as innocent but upsetting play.

    ReplyDelete
  3. interesting use of wikipedia. but usually if something is false it is usually taken off almost immediatly, also (this is me) but if i read an article and it says citation needed then i dont consider it true till i researched it further.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This says a lot about the nature of wikipedia. It's far too easy to be changed and false information added. Of course, most people who use wikipedia are aware of it's problems. Generally though, mistakes are easily noticeable and wikis are a useful tool. Not useful enough to be legitimate sources for college or high school reports though...

    ReplyDelete