When I first learned about having to read this book for class, based on the title of “The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality” and saw “Confessions of a Contributer” on the cover, I was expecting a really exciting tell-all type book. It’s not as juicy as what I was hoping for, but for the most part it’s interesting and it is very informative. It does get kind of boring and monotonous at times, though.
The author, Andrew Dalby is an English linguist, translator and historian, whose main interests are food and foreign languages. He’s also a Wikipedia insider—an active member of the site’s editing community.
Dalby begins the book with a story about how articles on Wikipedia appear and are edited, and edited, and edited again. He didn't tell me anything that I didn’t know about already, with the exception of the specific articles he referenced from the site.
Ask any 13 year old what Wikipedia is, and they can probably tell you. If there's anyone out there in the blogosphere who doesn't know--and I doubt there is, but I'll explain, anyway. Wikipedia a free, web-based, collaborative multilingual encyclopedia project that is supported by the non-profit Wikipedia Fund. It is currently the largest and most popular go-to site online when seeking general reference. People no longer go to Encyclopedia Brittanica for their information. Is this a wise decision?
There have been several studies done to determine the accuracy of Wikipedia, and they show that Wikipedia is almost as accurate as Encyclopedia Brittanica. Based on 42 articles reviewed by experts, the average scientific entry on Wikipedia contained 4 errors or omissions, while Encyclopedia Brittanica had 3 (CNET News 2005).
Wikipedia strives to be a legitimate compilation of verifiable, neutral, information with no original research articles. However, its best and worst features are one in the same. Anyone can edit pretty much anything they choose to, and can do so anonymously. Even their email addresses tied to their accounts can remain anonymous. Dalby gives examples of the good and the bad participants, and shows us how one person can totally screw up an entry for no other reason than just being spiteful. He also shows us how long it can sometimes take before the “fake” information is found and corrected. Since anyone has the ability to edit virtually any content on the site, things can and do get skewed, and downright ugly sometimes. Political agendas and bias find there way in, and the most controversial topics, such as religion, race, politics, philosophy and terrorism cause the site to become a public battleground.
Wikipedia is not perfect, but like anything else on the net, and technological, it will probably continue to grow and will most likely improve as time goes on. We must remember, however, we need to take into account the authors’ accountability, reliability, vandalism, authority, accuracy, scrupulousness, and scholarly credentials. I will continue to look at Wikipedia, however, I will never, ever rely solely on the information found on that site. It's just too risky.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Monday, October 11, 2010
It's the end of the book--not the end of the world, Mr. Postman!
I’ve finished “Technopoly” and my opinions haven’t changed all that much. I really enjoyed this book. It was informative and entertaining, even though I feel that Mr. Postman did a lot of rambling, saying the same things over and over. Sort of like a Doomsday Prophet. For the most part, I disagree with much of what he has said, however, he does make some sense and I have to give him credit where it's due. For example, Mr. Postman states that “our youth must be shown that not all worthwhile things are instantly accessible and that there are levels of sensibility unknown to them.” I also agree that elementary education should place more emphasis on fundamental disciplines such as logic. We do sometimes rely too heavily on technology, and we cannot forget how to think for ourselves.Or to THINK in general.
I’m not going to lose any sleep for fear that technology is going to take over the world, as depicted in movies such as “Terminator” “The Matrix”, and “I, Robot.” However, I think that people do need to pay more attention to WHAT they are doing, and the CONSEQUENCES of their actions. Take for example, the unbelievably sad case of Tyler Clementi. This young man and fellow Rutgers student took his own life after his college roommate and another student captured Tyler’s intimate moments with another man on video, and shared the video/live feed with anyone who wanted to see. This is disgraceful. I’m fairly certain that the kids meant for it to be nothing more than a stupid college prank that would gain them popularity, however, their actions cost a young man his life. His family will never be the same again, and their lives and the lives of their families won’t, either. These kids didn’t stop to THINK about what they did, or what the consequences might be. Internet stalking and bullying is on the rise, as well. Sometimes it’s just too easy to hit “send” or to click through a couple of icons or links, without putting much thought into what you’re doing. I think many of us can say that we’ve had regrets or second thoughts after clicking that “send” button. I know I have. I’ve gotten that sick feeling in my stomach, after hitting send, and then thinking, “Did I send that to the right person?” “Did I fill out the CC/BCC correctly, so everyone doesn't get all the replies?” “Should I have sent that at all?"
Mr. Postman was a very good writer and storyteller. Throughout his book, he makes some valid points, but for the most part, he is very one-sided and comes off sounding a bit paranoid. For example, in Chapter 6, Mr. Postman talks about the dangers of technology in the medical profession. He feels that doctors and surgeons should not be using computers to assist with surgical procedures, and that using machines for making diagnoses is also not a good thing. I disagree wholeheartedly. Machines can guide us. They see things we cannot see with the human eye. Machines break down blood cells to determine abnormalities. Without the diagnoses made largely by machines, we cannot have the treatments.
One thing that does concern me a little bit, as both a healthcare provider and a healthcare consumer, is the computerized charting/electronic health records used by most hospitals now. For the most part, I am “for” their use. There are definitely more pros than cons to their use. It’s a lot faster, and records are easily accessible to physicians and all members of the multi-disciplinary team. Data is much easier to locate on computerized charts than it is on paper charts and finally, handwriting can often be difficult to read (especially that of doctors!) Computerized charting eliminates the guesswork and possibility of any misinterpretations, as well as saves time when you don’t need to call someone to ask them what the heck they wrote on such-and-such a patient. I can't tell you how many times I've had to do that in the past. It's a colossal waste of everyone's time, and time management is essential.
However, we do need to consider those cons: It is just too easy to go through the motions, becoming lax by clicking away, without putting much thought into your documentation (which is legal and you are held accountable for). Electronic health records are also not hack-free, therefore, your privacy may be compromised. Finally, what happens when the system crashes, and you can’t access the records? Then what???
I really do not believe that technology is the enemy, destroying traditional culture and creating a culture without a moral foundation, as Mr. Postman did. My concerns lie with the humans using the computers and not the computers themselves.
I’m not going to lose any sleep for fear that technology is going to take over the world, as depicted in movies such as “Terminator” “The Matrix”, and “I, Robot.” However, I think that people do need to pay more attention to WHAT they are doing, and the CONSEQUENCES of their actions. Take for example, the unbelievably sad case of Tyler Clementi. This young man and fellow Rutgers student took his own life after his college roommate and another student captured Tyler’s intimate moments with another man on video, and shared the video/live feed with anyone who wanted to see. This is disgraceful. I’m fairly certain that the kids meant for it to be nothing more than a stupid college prank that would gain them popularity, however, their actions cost a young man his life. His family will never be the same again, and their lives and the lives of their families won’t, either. These kids didn’t stop to THINK about what they did, or what the consequences might be. Internet stalking and bullying is on the rise, as well. Sometimes it’s just too easy to hit “send” or to click through a couple of icons or links, without putting much thought into what you’re doing. I think many of us can say that we’ve had regrets or second thoughts after clicking that “send” button. I know I have. I’ve gotten that sick feeling in my stomach, after hitting send, and then thinking, “Did I send that to the right person?” “Did I fill out the CC/BCC correctly, so everyone doesn't get all the replies?” “Should I have sent that at all?"
Mr. Postman was a very good writer and storyteller. Throughout his book, he makes some valid points, but for the most part, he is very one-sided and comes off sounding a bit paranoid. For example, in Chapter 6, Mr. Postman talks about the dangers of technology in the medical profession. He feels that doctors and surgeons should not be using computers to assist with surgical procedures, and that using machines for making diagnoses is also not a good thing. I disagree wholeheartedly. Machines can guide us. They see things we cannot see with the human eye. Machines break down blood cells to determine abnormalities. Without the diagnoses made largely by machines, we cannot have the treatments.
One thing that does concern me a little bit, as both a healthcare provider and a healthcare consumer, is the computerized charting/electronic health records used by most hospitals now. For the most part, I am “for” their use. There are definitely more pros than cons to their use. It’s a lot faster, and records are easily accessible to physicians and all members of the multi-disciplinary team. Data is much easier to locate on computerized charts than it is on paper charts and finally, handwriting can often be difficult to read (especially that of doctors!) Computerized charting eliminates the guesswork and possibility of any misinterpretations, as well as saves time when you don’t need to call someone to ask them what the heck they wrote on such-and-such a patient. I can't tell you how many times I've had to do that in the past. It's a colossal waste of everyone's time, and time management is essential.
However, we do need to consider those cons: It is just too easy to go through the motions, becoming lax by clicking away, without putting much thought into your documentation (which is legal and you are held accountable for). Electronic health records are also not hack-free, therefore, your privacy may be compromised. Finally, what happens when the system crashes, and you can’t access the records? Then what???
I really do not believe that technology is the enemy, destroying traditional culture and creating a culture without a moral foundation, as Mr. Postman did. My concerns lie with the humans using the computers and not the computers themselves.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)