Wiki’s – Week 6 Reflection

Posted: April 12, 2012 in Uncategorized

I thoroughly enjoyed this week’s tutorial about Wiki’s.

A Web 2.0 platform, Wiki’s encourages online collaboration and where people contribute written by individuals but usually collaborated as a group.

Wiki’s are mostly easy-to-use, so the user logins, opens the WYSIWYG, creates and edits text, then saves. That easy! Wiki’s use Wikitext as their web programming language which has restricted the use of HTML, so it uses non-HTML elements with different version that are easy to understand and change.

There was a Youtube video provided as part of the lecture, “Wiki’s in Place English” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dnL00TdmLY&feature=player_embedded that provide “A short explanation about wikis and how they can be used to coordinate a group of people’s activities. This video comes in an unbranded “presentation quality” version that can be licensed for use in the workplace. ” (leelefever, 2007)

The example in the video, provided was about a group of friends wanting to go on a camping trip. They each used the tool to update information about what they were taking on the trip in a collaborative fashion. The demonstration provided an easy to follow instruction on the benefits and ease-of-use Wiki’s. Goodbye email hello Wiki! Reviewing the comments on the video, there were 1,740,596 users who have accessed the page, 94 dislikes and mostly positive comments from people how they enjoyed the explanation as of today!

This week’s activity was to learn more about Wikipedia where we accessed the rules governing Wikipedia and added content to a chosen page to see how long it would take before something commented.

Wikipedia is a multilingual, web-based, free encyclopaedia used by people globally at any time and place to access general information. It has changed the way that people access and use print media.

Recently Britannica announced they were no longer running a print edition (Google News 2012). There is some contention between Wikipedia and Britannica, especially on topics of reliability and the model of collaboration and updating information. Britannica takes a more “traditional publishing approach” (Bryant, S.L., Forte, A., Bruckman, A., 2005) where content is regulated by academics and editors. They claim in a story published in Google 2012, to “have VIP experts contributing along with more than 100 employed editors, and their focus is to provide a more “scholarly knowledge to an editorial process to as many knowledge seekers as possible.” (Google News 2012).

On the other hand, Wikipedia’s encyclopaedia is constantly evolving using “a new paradigm for collaborative systems” (Bryant et. al, 2005) in a Wikipedian community of volunteer editors with various roles using open source platform WikiMedia to monitor watch updates, edit, discuss, debate, delete bots, administer, and other assigned tasks ensure a common goal to provide “a neutral point of view” in articles.

The activity of the Wikipedian community is governed by a set of rules with various processes, policies, guidelines and etiquette. Wikipedia has been a controversial Web 2.0 platform with much debate by academics, and various groups around the world.

There has been a raft of research conducted both qualitative and quantitative (longitudinal and metrics applied) conducted by academics to review its patterns of use, it’s community structure, academic use and views, comparisons between traditional and non-traditional publishing and quality and reliability of data such as Iba, Nemoto, Peters and Gloor (2009), who conducted a qualitative analyse of 2580 featured articles of the English Wikipedia investigating the editing patterns and authoring process of editors and mediators.  They categorised the editors into “coolfarmers” and “egoboosters” (Iba, Nemoto, Peters and Gloor, 2009) varying patterns of participation in a community group setting.

As a user of Wikipedia, in the past I referred to it at least once a week but didn’t realise, clearly evident by the amount of media coverage and research evidence, how much influence and impact it has on our society globally.

After this fascinating discovery, I have decided to use Wikipedia as a Web 2.0 online participation and collaboration tool to discuss and analyse the extent to which user and participants communicate and collaborate. Especially after this week’s activity where we chose, accessed a page and suggested a change to content to see how long it took for Wikipedians to comment, or alter. Also, learning about the processes in this online space! I have been spending hours researching a raft of published and online resource to learn more and am finding it amazing! Maybe I will volunteer to become a Wikipedian (as I slowly delete information off my Facebook account!).

References

Babwin, D. 2012. “Britannica’s halt of print edition triggers sales”Associated Press, Google News Accessed on:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jHo0JFfDQcvK3n5siIVjloQ3wOFg?docId=e98feaa582604d5b8a153c5c18c45e05 [10 april 2012]

Bragues, G 2007. “Wiki–Philosophizing in a Marketplace of Ideas: Evaluating Wikipedia’s Entries on Seven Great Minds” (April), available at http://ssrn.com/, accessed 27 August 2008.

Brock Read, 2006. “Can Wikipedia Ever Make the Grade?” Chronicle of Higher Education, volume 53, number 10 (27 October), p. A31, and at http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i10/10a03101.htm, accessed 8 December 2007.

Bryant, S.L., Forte, A., Bruckman, A., 2005. “Becoming a Wikipedian: Transformation of Particpation in a Collaborative Online Encyolopedia”, USA, Group 05.

Cauz J “Today’s announcement is not about our past, but our future—and the new ways we’re serving our customers.” http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2012/03/looking-ahead/

Dan Tynan, 2008. “The truth is out there … somewhere,” US Airways Magazine (January), p. 42.

Giles J, 2005. “Internet encyclopedias go head to head,” Nature, volume 438, number 7070 (15 December), pp. 900-901, and at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html, accessed 27 August 2008.

Halavais A. 2004. “The Isuzu Experiment,” blog entry at A Thaumaturgical Compendium (29 August), at http://alex.halavais.net/index.php?p=794, accessed 8 December 2007.

Iba, T. Nemoto K, Peters B, Gloor, P. (2009). Analyzing the Crative Editing Behaviour of Wikipedia Editors Through Dynamic Social Network Analysis. Elservier Procedia

Google News, (2012), Last entry for Encyclopaedia Britannica book form. (2012, March 14). Google News. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hc9zqm8Xa0XRwsLRmYf82zGmPFiw?docId=43381529ee37405ba564b938e5ad2615

P.D. Magnus, 2006. “Epistemology and the Wikipedia,” paper presented at the North American Computing and Philosophy Conference in Troy, New York, at http://www.fecundity.com/job/wikipedia.pdf, accessed 27 August 2008.

Thomas Chesney, 2006. “An empirical examination of Wikipedia’s credibility,” First Monday, volume 11, number 11 (November), at http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/chesney/, accessed 27 August 2008.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s