1. The Mosaic browser did not give users the ability to edit the Web pages they were viewing. It turned Web surfers into passive consumers of published content.
2. Blogs and wikis contain posts, sometimes similar to journal entries, from a person or a group. The posts are dated and listed in reverse chronological order. People can comment on posts as well as provide links to related sites, photos, and blogs.
3. No matter how much was in it, there were many more things that weren’t. And this became more so with time. After a few years, there were all sorts of topics—moon landings and rock festivals and protest marches, Kennedy's and kings—that were not included.
4. Wales next tried an idea that reflected his childhood love of the World Book: an online encyclopedia. He dubbed it Nupedia, and it had two attributes: it would be written by volunteers, and it would be free.
5. They remind me that there is always more to learn.
6. After a year, Nupedia had only about a dozen articles published, making it useless as an encyclopedia, and 150 that were still in draft stage, which indicated how unpleasant the process had become. It had been rigorously engineered not to scale.
8. Obtain (information or input into a particular task or project) by enlisting the services of a number of people, either paid or unpaid, typically via the Internet.
9. I think its a valid argument. Some people will just go into forums and alter the text for comical purposes. It makes wikipedia less of a reliable resource for individuals who are actually searching for information.
10. The article claims that idiots can post incorrect and biased information and other idiots can take that and make it better. I don't find it valid to any extent, its just not realistic.
11. It became to Web content what GNU/Linux was to software: a peer-to-peer commons collaboratively created and maintained by volunteers who worked for the civic satisfactions they found. It was a delightful, counterintuitive concept, perfectly suited to the philosophy, attitude, and technology of the Internet.
12. I think it was a bad thing because it just created conflict in the work space. They had increasingly clashed on fundamental issues, such as Sanger’s desire to give more deference to experts and scholars.
13. The anecdote kind of emphasizes the downsides of using Wikipedia. People can edit posts as much as they wanted and it created conflicts.
14. The quote displays not only the team efforts behind wikipedia but the reason a website like wikipedia was created. It demonstrates the power or creating pieces that many minds get to put there two sense into.
15. The website naturally grew on its own from not only mass but diversity in its usage.
16. Not only is all that material in Wikipedia contributed for free, it is available to you free. It’s the website for collaboration that doesn’t have limits.
17. I don't agree only because people don't use it for what it really is. And its never been useful for me because schools discourage using it.
18. It’s the rush of dopamine that seems to hit the brain’s pleasure center when you make a smart edit and it appears instantly in a Wikipedia article. Until recently, being published was a pleasure afforded only to a select few.
19. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for information. I would only use it if it was reliable enough for schools to use.
20. Its totally possible for a 16 year old to write insightful articles. Really, it depends on the maturity of the person, not the age.
21. It depends, I would have to read the information first. After I read it, I could question its reliability.
22. I think Wales means that there is a level of untapped potential as a world. Who knows the advancements that could occur if everyone had the same opportunity to acquire knowledge.
23. I agree because sometimes a different perspective is all you need. Its not always about the smartest people, and for all we know that person could be found in a under developed nation.
24. I definitely think that wikipedia succeeded in its mission. Wikipedia allows people not merely to access other people’s knowledge but to share their own.
25. I 100% agree with this. People can be intellectual on various different educational and artistic levels and it doesn't always require skilled training.
26. I would not use it for my academic research. The article sheds light on good aspects of wikipedia, but there are still more reliable sources that could be used on the internet.
27. I wouldn't like to write or edit articles for Wikipedia because its just not in my interests. Perhaps if i felt there was something to be shared that not many people have the opportunity to realize then maybe i would.
1. The Mosaic browser did not give users the ability to edit the Web pages they were viewing. It turned Web surfers into passive consumers of published content.
2. Blogs and wikis contain posts, sometimes similar to journal entries, from a person or a group. The posts are dated and listed in reverse chronological order. People can comment on posts as well as provide links to related sites, photos, and blogs.
3. No matter how much was in it, there were many more things that weren’t. And this became more so with time. After a few years, there were all sorts of topics—moon landings and rock festivals and protest marches, Kennedy's and kings—that were not included.
4. Wales next tried an idea that reflected his childhood love of the World Book: an online encyclopedia. He dubbed it Nupedia, and it had two attributes: it would be written by volunteers, and it would be free.
5. They remind me that there is always more to learn.
6. After a year, Nupedia had only about a dozen articles published, making it useless as an encyclopedia, and 150 that were still in draft stage, which indicated how unpleasant the process had become. It had been rigorously engineered not to scale.
8. Obtain (information or input into a particular task or project) by enlisting the services of a number of people, either paid or unpaid, typically via the Internet.
9. I think its a valid argument. Some people will just go into forums and alter the text for comical purposes. It makes wikipedia less of a reliable resource for individuals who are actually searching for information.
10. The article claims that idiots can post incorrect and biased information and other idiots can take that and make it better. I don't find it valid to any extent, its just not realistic.
11. It became to Web content what GNU/Linux was to software: a peer-to-peer commons collaboratively created and maintained by volunteers who worked for the civic satisfactions they found. It was a delightful, counterintuitive concept, perfectly suited to the philosophy, attitude, and technology of the Internet.
12. I think it was a bad thing because it just created conflict in the work space. They had increasingly clashed on fundamental issues, such as Sanger’s desire to give more deference to experts and scholars.
13. The anecdote kind of emphasizes the downsides of using Wikipedia. People can edit posts as much as they wanted and it created conflicts.
14. The quote displays not only the team efforts behind wikipedia but the reason a website like wikipedia was created. It demonstrates the power or creating pieces that many minds get to put there two sense into.
15. The website naturally grew on its own from not only mass but diversity in its usage.
16. Not only is all that material in Wikipedia contributed for free, it is available to you free. It’s the website for collaboration that doesn’t have limits.
17. I don't agree only because people don't use it for what it really is. And its never been useful for me because schools discourage using it.
18. It’s the rush of dopamine that seems to hit the brain’s pleasure center when you make a smart edit and it appears instantly in a Wikipedia article. Until recently, being published was a pleasure afforded only to a select few.
19. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for information. I would only use it if it was reliable enough for schools to use.
20. Its totally possible for a 16 year old to write insightful articles. Really, it depends on the maturity of the person, not the age.
21. It depends, I would have to read the information first. After I read it, I could question its reliability.
22. I think Wales means that there is a level of untapped potential as a world. Who knows the advancements that could occur if everyone had the same opportunity to acquire knowledge.
23. I agree because sometimes a different perspective is all you need. Its not always about the smartest people, and for all we know that person could be found in a under developed nation.
24. I definitely think that wikipedia succeeded in its mission. Wikipedia allows people not merely to access other people’s knowledge but to share their own.
25. I 100% agree with this. People can be intellectual on various different educational and artistic levels and it doesn't always require skilled training.
26. I would not use it for my academic research. The article sheds light on good aspects of wikipedia, but there are still more reliable sources that could be used on the internet.
26. I would not use it for my academic research. The article sheds light on good aspects of wikipedia, but there are still more reliable sources that could be used on the internet.
27. I wouldn't like to write or edit articles for Wikipedia because its just not in my interests. Perhaps if i felt there was something to be shared that not many people have the opportunity to realize then maybe i would.
No comments:
Post a Comment