When reading WikiWebCollaborationChap1, they talked about how wikis have been around for a long time. This topic idea reminded me of how often I look to wikipedia for dumb version so I can understand. Wikipedia has been around as long as I can remember using the internet, I did not even know there was a certain style like wikis; I just figured they were something that had to do with the web, not a platform like a blogging site or email; they were just web lingo. So when I see SecretMediaRevolution, I see the style as sneaky, I didn't even know it was there until I was told, then suddenly I see it everywhere.


I can understand how this can seem so sneaky but it can also just be because of our own ignorance. But I am with you when it comes to Wikipedia. I thought that it was just a word play on encyclopedia (even though it really is). SecretMediaRevolution sounds so intriguing and definitely describes wikis well. It is a sense of a revolution by creating a media with such freedom and openness. There's something that can be seen as frightening about a wiki and all of the freedom can be seen as so overwhelming. And also it makes me wonder what gives me the right to contribute to the content? What do I really know? I'm still playing with the actual wiki and the idea of what we use the wiki for. Right now I am just trying the concept of contributing to Thread Mode.


So, what we're doing right now is thread mode. We're discussing the SecretMediaRevolution. Our findings will eventually become the page itself. If our ideas are stupid someone can come along, erase them and no one would ever know. This is another way wikis can be seen as sneaky: sneaky editing procedures. Joe forgot to capitalize an "i" in his paragraph above so I fixed it. Nobody would have noticed if I didn't mention the change.

Going off of what Leah talked about, the freedom to go and alter whatever I want can definitely be seen as overwhelming, considering the fact that I see myself as a bit of a grammar freak. No, my grammar isn't perfect; however, when I see a blatant fault I have to fix it and the wiki software provides the opportunity to easily do so. Just a double-click and the page bows to my will.


It's also worth noting that this power could easily be abused. In high school, I scoffed when one of my English teachers spent a class period denouncing Wikipedia, citing that anyone could edit it and "What if a third grader with D grades goes on and edits the article you're looking at?"

It's a bit of a far-fetched fear, but technically valid, at least for some pages on Wikipedia. If said third grader is suddenly gripped with the impulse to inform Wikipedia readers that people who live in Charles City, Iowa eat bugs for breakfast, they could do it. Obviously, some pages are more policed than others, but the possibility still remains.

This Wiki is a little different in that you have to be in the class, or formerly in the class, to edit pages, but once you're in, you have access to just about all the editing privileges you could want. So be on the lookout for third-graders.


I feel like reading Wikipedia is like playing a giant game of Balderdash. You need to take a gamble on which fact sounds legit. Sometimes you're right, sometimes you're wrong. From that point, you need to look at the sources. Did the fact come from an encyclopedia or the mind of some random bouncing about the internet? If anything, instead of citing Wikipedia as your source follow that little blue number to the fact's origin. From there you can read the entire article instead of the small summative sentence or two someone else deemed as important.


Even though I started using the Wiki in Web Content Writing, I am still trying to wrap my mind around the whole idea of the Wiki and the SecretMediaRevolution. Wikis are so simple and can be very useful, but it's so easy for something to go wrong. Based off internet threads I've seen in the past (on any YouTube video with a lot of views, for example), conversations that gain contention among commenters can get heated--and on a Wiki, what's to stop someone from deleting everything? Nothing (however, it is nice that you can click on 'History' and put everything back where it was). Being able to edit so easily can be a blessing and a curse.

This is all a part of the Wiki culture, however. If you can get a group of people focused on making the Wiki better, which seems to be the case on a lot of Wikipedia pages and probably will be for this class, the Wiki can be a great thing. It's a team effort. Edit the Wiki to enhance it. One of the tips in our reading says people are polite in Wiki and that the concept is based off people being well-mannered. It only take one person to ruin it, but if you have the right group/community, you can go far.


So I took a look into google and I looked up SecretMediaRevolution.

I know we are not supposed to do this, but I clicked on wikipedia to find something to start my search,
That's exactly what you should do! Start anywhere, then work deep. If Wikipedia is all that's available, grab the stuff that's useful here so we can develop it further.

and I found that SecretMediaRevolution is actually a book that a German dude wrote, Weblogs, Wikis und freie Software die Welt verändern. What I found from there is that he actually wrote two books on the same subject, only the first one was more wiki-technical whereas the other was more content based. I then googled Erik Moller and I found a google books about wikis. On this page they talk about how wikis and social culture might be involved with each other i.e. cell phone/texting integration that each pose on society, but with wikis and their free software. This makes more sense when we talk about wikis, not only are people, like me, ignorant, but they are also making a secret effect on our social lifes and cultures.


Speaking of not being able to use Wikipedia, I don't think using it should be against any research practices. Even when my professors told me not to use it, I usually at least started there to get a basic understanding of what I was looking for and to get links to more "acceptable" sources (usually for research papers/term projects). I've always found it to be more credible than it gets credit for and more up-to-date and easy to use than, say, a print encyclopedia. The judgement should be left to the student/user, who should do his or her best to try to tell when the information on the page is false, biased, or at least not properly cited. This is one of the problems noted in Joe's Moller link that confronts defenders of Wikis and Wikipedia.

Though Wikipedia has improved over the course of time, there will always be things like Tosh.0 that decrease its worthiness (though it was pretty funny in this case). However, like I mentioned earlier, Wikis have the capability to continue improving. The balance between creative freedom and restrictions of it along with a strong community need to be there. Overall, that is happening and that is something that is helping the Wiki become a part of our social culture.

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