Speaking of Wikipedia, as time goes on, it’s becoming more and more respectful. There was a time, in academia, when it was “illegal” to use it for term papers. You couldn’t even say the name inside a college classroom.
These days, as more articles are improving in quality, that’s not as true. Some college courses are creating and/or improving articles as part of their curriculum. It teaches students how to research, cite sources, and write in a collaborative fashion. They use the peer review process, and the “FAC,” or “Featured Article Candidacy” process. Not only do they learn collaboration, they learn how to interact with others, and sometimes even conflict resolution.
One of my Wiki-pals (i.e., people you know through Wikipedia) likes conflict. I swear, she picks the most controversial articles and works on them. Then she steps back and waits for the attacks. I think that’s what she lives for, although she does seem stressed out about it. As for me, I tend to choose articles with very little controversy. It so fits my personality; I’m one who avoids conflict at all costs.
I was certain, then, that when I “adopted” the Wikipedia article about “Sesame Street,” that I’d get all kinds of controversy. I’m honestly surprised that I haven’t. It’s somewhat highly vandalized, though, but hardly anyone has objected to my large-scale edits. I mean, I have literally taken chunks of content from it and thrown it away.
Not without substance to replace it with, though—at least what I think is substance. Because before I got a hold of it, it was crap. It had very little (okay, almost no) information that was backed by a reliable source. Now that I think about it, perhaps I haven’t been confronted about it because any reasonable person would look at its previous version and be glad that the crap is now gone.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment