As I've delved further into some of the Gated Nations on Newsvine, I've found some actual substantive discussion that I've felt was lacking in the general Open Nations. I was promptly accepted to one rather prominent "anything goes" Nation, and have seen insightful commentary and community discussion. More impressively, the conversation takes several different tones at once. Some are having honest sharing experiences in one thread, some are having heated discussions in another, and some are spouting vitriol in other areas. Unlike other forums I've been in, the tone for one conversation does not set the tone for any of the others, and the members quite easily keep their respective communication styles seperate. I've found this interesting and have been actively engaging in these conversations to make better sense of it.
What I've found in most other places is that there is one set theme to a discussion, and that theme permeates until another theme takes its place. Like Wikis for example. The back end of wikipedia, where the editing happens, is often full of discussions on the appropriateness of changes to front end content. Much of it is substantive philosophical and informational discussion. I've seen many debates about the goal of sharing as much information as possible, balanced with the goal of having all, or at least most, information be correct and cited. I've seen rather vitriolic debates about appropriate content simply solved by a rewording and corrected reference by a third party.
The back end editing area of Wikipedia is its own community, for sure, and I think that's an unavoidable and integrative part of wikis. The currency of information balances the accuracy for sure and looking at the back end can sometimes be more constructive about the debates surrounding a given issue than the article itself. As a resource, they can be amazingly informative and concise on the front end, but full of debate and intrigue on the back end.
Also, there's the issue of trolling. Occasionally a user will take it into their head to deface a page, for whatever reason. Replacing real information with pictures of penises or other such juvenile nonsense before someone else comes along and corrects the page again. However, occasionally, someone changes the content so subtle that it appears to be correct information, but is the opposite. This is dangerous for research purposes and one reason sources must always be vetted personally.
Many regular Wikipedia editors have subscriptions to the back ends of the articles they police, so that any erroneous changes are regularly reported and fixed. This means Wikipedia is slowly turning into more like a curated encyclopedia, maintained by a staff, rather than the stereotype of a willy-nilly, anyone can make anything true place. However, vetting is always necessary in case of slip-ups, and Wikipedia makes finding the original source and checking it super easy with the references listed. If an idea doesn't have a reference, vetting it can be a bit more difficult.
I referenced a Wiki in my last paper for Dr, Bonnici, actually, and consider them an appropriate resource for certain rare situations. I was discussing memes and the unwritten rules they represent, so a Wiki of memes which is also a site involved in viral meme creation seemed to be the authoritative source on the subject. In that case a Wiki was the source. When discussing an issue that is fluid and dynamic and has to do with internet culture, sometimes Wikis can be not only the most useful resource, but also the most reputable one in the given circumstance.
With that being said, it is crucial to vet any and all Wiki information, particularly if the information is not sociological in nature. Wikis are an ongoing, evolving discussion, whereas a paper or article is a single unit of information, and it is important to acknowledge the differences between them and what type of information the subject at hand requires.
I would not cite Wikipedia as a definitive medical resource, but I would mine it for references for primary research. I might, however, cite a Wiki in a political science paper, if I was discussing the extremely current and changing political spectrum. That would be an appropriate use of a Wiki, and I think it would be wrong to demonize them entirely as unreliable, biased sources. All sources should be taken with a grain of salt and fully researched and vetted. Wikis are no exception.
No comments:
Post a Comment