Added: "In digital space, where people from all different walks of life can interact with each other, one thing you can always count on is for cultural divides to arise. Divisions can be based on a variety of circumstances. Groups may differ in race, age, religion, economic status, political viewpoints, or any number of other issues. When it comes to wikis, the main divisive topic is credibility, and the divide itself generally falls on a generational line. You know what I'm talking about, right? All through highschool and into college we were told by just about every teacher that, "WIKIPEDIA ISN'T A CREDIBLE RESEARCH SOURCE!!!11!!1!"

As Ebersbach, Glaser, Heigl, and Warta state in Wikis: Web Collaboration, "Forgoing an intermediate (quality) control causes many to doubt the credibility of information."

And so older generations (obviously with some exceptions) are generally distrustful of wikis, while teens and young adults don't see a problem with them. This is easy to understand if you take some time to analyze the opposing cultures. On the one hand, you have the older folks, who at least had their primary education before the days of Google and Wikipedia. To them, a valid source is one which can be verified to be written by a credible author who is knowledgeable on whatever subject they've written about. It's written, it's done, it cannot be changed. They do not view wikis as credible because anyone can change any of the content on a whim. The younger generations, on the other hand, have grown up in a digital world, and they are more trusting of it because they are more fluent in the digital culture. They have a certain type of sense in which they know that outright lies and slander will be corrected, and that what they read on wikis are generally trustworthy."




Added: "That is a good point. I was wary of making such a generalization myself, but that was the best way to put it based on my own personal observations. Maybe it would be better described as a divide between the WikiNoobs and WikiPro?
-MelindaSingleton"




Replaced original content with:
"In digital space, where people from all different walks of life can interact with each other, one thing you can always count on is for cultural divides to arise. Divisions can be based on a variety of circumstances. Groups may differ in race, age, religion, economic status, political viewpoints, or any number of other issues. When it comes to wikis, the main divisive topic is credibility, and the divide itself generally falls on a experiential line. You know what I'm talking about, right? All through highschool and into college we were told by just about every teacher that, "WIKIPEDIA ISN'T A CREDIBLE RESEARCH SOURCE!!!11!!1!"

As Ebersbach, Glaser, Heigl, and Warta state in Wikis: Web Collaboration, "Forgoing an intermediate (quality) control causes many to doubt the credibility of information."

And so those who haven't ventured into the world of wikis tend to distrust them, while those who know how they work don't see a problem with them. For those WikiNoobs it is easy to get stuck in a positive feedback loop. To them, a valid source is one which can be verified to be written by a credible author who is knowledgeable on whatever subject they've written about. It's written, it's done, it cannot be changed. They do not view wikis as credible because anyone can change any of the content on a whim. Because they believe this, they don't dare to investigate any further, and therefor they continue to perpetuate distrust. A WikiPro, on the other hand, tends to be someone who has grown up in a digital world, and they are more trusting of wikis because they are more fluent in the digital culture, and wiki culture in particular. They are aware of how and why soft security works, and so they find wikis trustworthy because they know that errors and intentional deceptions will be corrected.

There are no comments on this page.
Valid XHTML :: Valid CSS: :: Powered by WikkaWiki