1. In this article, I think that the author is trying to show that innovation, although seemingly all positive, can in the end, turn into something opposite of what was intended. Wikipedia is a popular online encyclopedia, in which a community of users has the ability to edit different entries in order to correct them or update information. The unanticipated success of Wikipedia came as a slight shock, because prior to its creation, Encyclopedia Britannica was the choice encyclopedia software. The new encyclopedia was resourceful and efficient, drawing from volunteers to maintain the site and keep it free for all users. Certain entries have become so popular that they are updated even by the hour, making Wikipedia a news choice for many users. There are only two rules which state that the articles must remain neutral and come from a verifiable, legitimate source. The goal of Wikipedia was to cause a radical change, and to cross boundaries. Overtime, Wikipedia became an online community in which users would discuss a range of topics, and keep tidy the endless amounts of encyclopedia entries. However, as time passed, Wikipedia became cluttered with those who abused the right to edit, forcing Essjay to create restrictions on user rights. Included is the 3R rule, in which a user is blocked from editing for 24 hours if they revert text three times. The author then continues to compare Wikipedia with Britannica, which is not allowed to be altered by users. Although Britannica cannot be interfered with by the general public, it has nearly the same amount of errors as Wikipedia.
2. “Connolley believes that Wikipedia ‘gives no privilege to those who know what they’re talking about,…’” (p.5., paragraph 4)
I chose this passage because the author uses many quoted sources to back up the information. The paragraph describes the potential drawbacks of Wikipedia, and how the fact that it can be edited by anyone creates eventual problems. Quotes from those experienced with Wikipedia, such as former contributors, provide affirmation.
3. I think that both encyclopedias are similar. Fundamental differences do exist, however. Wikipedia is free, where you have to subscribe to Britannica. Professionals and experts contribute to Britannica, but any lay person can edit and change a Wikipedia entry. As for usability and behavioral design, I feel that Wikipedia is more user-friendly. Viscerally, both are well done. However, visceral design is not as significant as usability for a product that must draw immediate information for the user. As for reflective design, Wikipedia is available to anyone that can access the internet, giving Britannica more exclusivity and prestige in the minds of users.
No comments:
Post a Comment