Collaborative Conversation on Mass Collaboration
Jason Swarts’s “The Collaborative Construction of ‘Fact’ on Wikipedia” speaks of problems that occur when Internet encyclopedias and databases are created by the masses. This can leave room for mistaken information and incorrect “facts”. These fact are often built up and tied together, linking themselves to other topics. Swarts also explains the ANT, Actor-Network Theory. This is the idea that all premises are made out of other forms of information already in existence.The black box term is also coined to explain how eventually, people look at a technology as a whole, rather than made up of intricate parts. We see this with the car and it is becoming the same of Wikipedia. Finally, the article shows just how topics can evolve and take on different meanings with the clean coal example. Creating these articles is never simple and shows how communities can rely on something, whether factual or faulty.
The workings of Wikipedia appear to be similar in nature to politics. It is sometimes confusing, always complicated and almost never coordinated. Some observers are content to accept the collections of information as fact, while others want more detailed explanations as to how the information was deemed factual. We have both been told that Wikipedia is not a source that we should use because some information found there was not fact. After reading about the inner workings of how Wikipedia comes to compile entries, We feel a little more secure, but are still not 100 percent on board. We feel like there is still significant room for error. Professor Tweedie gave us an example in class of someone he knew who tried to contribute, or make an opening move, on an entry, and as a result they were removed from the site. What we learned from that example is that it is near impossible to distinguish genuine contributions from those who are seeking to give false information or are running an emotionally fueled agenda.
We are careful not to completely discount Wikipedia though, especially since it addresses the real life use of the discourse community that Professor Courtney presented to us in class. To see all users as equal in their ability to contribute is not all negative and can in fact be beneficial to the world at large. It is cool to think that we can all build an encyclopedia together. It encourages personal fact checking instead of going with the majority or accepting established truths. Still, we are unsure if the benefits outweigh the potential for inaccuracies.
No different than other sources we have turned to in the past, we are careful in evaluating the information we read on the web. As with any site we may stumble upon, we are wary of the source and strongly consider its actuality before referring to it. With Wikipedia it is near impossible, due to time constraints, to adequately check for accuracy. For our own reading pleasure and quest for information, we occasionally visit Wikipedia. However, as with politics, we take the text with a grain of salt.
