Sep 20 2010
Week 4 – Framing Questions
1. In the first chapter, the author discusses the generational critiques of the Internet, with the first being that if the Internet gives everyone a voice or a chance to speak, then no one is listening. The second generational critique said the Internet is not as decentralized as we once thought (i.e., very few sites capture a large amount of attention and far more websites go unnoticed). Based on these observations and the continuing evolution of the World Wide Web, what could be some third generation critiques when it comes to networked publics and the democracy of sharing information?
2. In the second chapter, the author explains that many outlets do not rely on copyright royalties to attain their wealth, but rather see a greater benefit in sharing the information at a low (or zero) cost to users in order to have information circulated, thus making profit that way. With companies like the New York Times debating charging users for access to their websites, how would this affect the online information community and, perhaps, the focus on using copyrights for profits?
3. How are community-based websites, such as Wikipedia and Second Life, shaping our cultural understanding of the Internet? What are the social-norms and values (or even self-governing rules of conduct) of participating in these forums and how have they developed?
Tags: Benkler, copyrights, culture
September 20th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
In response to the 3rd question:
In January of 2001, there were only 10 contributors to Wikipedia. Four years later, in June of 2005 there were 48,721 contributors.
I believe community-based websites such as Wikipedia have greatly shaped how we process knowledge, as far as credibility. I first learned about or began using Wikipedia as an undergraduate and all of my professors enforced that we did not use this as a credible source. AND if we did use it and cited in on our bibliographies, it would be an automatic fail. Needless to say, by my last semester in undergrad there were at least two of my professors who believed Wikipedia might actually help the thinking process instead of hurt.
With that being said, as a society- I believe at one point we became so accustomed to living by predetermined American values that we often failed to wonder what was outside the box. Sure people challenged freedom of speech, but it was never this big of a movement as it is online. Sources like Wikipedia allow anyone to edit and serve as an administrator. In some ways this sounds scary and unreliable, but from a different perspective it is actually pretty intriguing. When you think about it, Wikipedia provides us with perhaps one of the most universal perspectives because of the multitude of individuals commenting on it. Hence, it may not ALWAYS be right- but it does portray how the majority of the population defines or sees an issue.
In The Wealth of Networks, Yochai Benkler points out the three core components of Wikipedia, the second being the following: “It is a self-conscious effort at creating an encyclopedia – governed first and foremost by a collective informal undertaking to strive for a neutral point of view, within the limits of the substantial self-awareness as to the difficulties of such an enterprise” (70). Many individual critiqued the power and credibility of Wikipeda because like Robert McHenry stated “Wikipedia is unreliable because it is not professionally produced” (Benkler 71). McHenry made this statement in 2004, as I’m sure a number of journalism backgrounds did; however in 2010 Wikipedia is within the top three google results of almost any issue.
I also find it interesting how many people doubted citizen journalism at the time, but today acknowledge how powerful personal blogs have became. It seems to support the fact that perhaps people would rather form their own opinions than be forced how to think. Benkler tells us that “the project relies on social norms to secure the dedication of the project participants to objective writing. The research indirectly tells us that there are web standards and ethics, but without them being clear for everyone to see- I think there are more less expectations.
In my opinion, I view Wikipedia as more of a discussion forum rather than dictionary- however there are many times when I allow Wikipedia to help me brainstorm ideas. Although I am not 100% comfortable at the moment using Wikipedia as a bona fide source, I think all power users can agree that they have referred to Wikipedia and taken into consideration information they found.