January 23, 2006

Today I had one of Marqui's management team ask me for a couple of paragraphs to describe Web 2.0.  Since I'd written about it before for Marqui's World, I said I'd pull something together and (of course) Googled "Web 2.0."  My favorite reference there is a white paper that Tim O'Rielly wrote that drills deeply into the concept of Web 2.0.  It's great work, but I needed a simple abstract.  I didn't have time to pull together something by digging through the whole Web 2.0 white paper.

Enter my next search, at wikipedia.  It's my favorite new tool for quick and complete search results.  I got not only a nice overview of Web 2.0, but some excellent background on how the concept of Web 2.0 came about.

Next time you need some good reference material, check out wikipedia at www.wikipedia.org.  It's a very cool tool, because people around the world work to update each wikipedia entry, keep them well researched and well written.

Hint:  THAT's very Web 2.0.

Posted by at January 23, 2006

Comments

Jess email -

On the topic of Wikipedia, we have been talking about it in our Survey Research Methods class. I was interested to see that you so highly recommend it to others. Before our class discussions last week, I was also a big advocate of Wikipedia.com. However, after several discussions about it, I am now a sceptic.

Wikipedia has pros and cons to consider. It is a great encyclopedia of information that can possibly help to inform others. It has more information than a dictionary and is often times very descriptive. I used to used Wikipedia for a quick reference on research papers, until I found out how the information is gathered.

The fact that any Joe-random can come in and change information on Wikipedia.com, makes me question if the information is correct or not. As we were talking about it in class, several students went to Wikipedia and changed information about their hometown. I do not know if they added false information, or if it was true. That is the point we have been talking about in class. We don't know if the contributors on Wikipedia are adding true or false information, because ANYONE can add information.

I am interested to hear what you think about our class discussion!

Teli Adlam email - www.buniek.com

Yes, WikiPedia can be a great resource for information, but it has its caveats.

Dave Taylor has an interesting post a while back called "What WikiPedia Lost: Credibility"

http://www.intuitive.com/blog/what_wikipedia_lost_credibility.html

In it he details how some of his students used WikiPedia as a reference, but failed to check their facts.

It also showed one of the largest flaws (which doubles as its greatest asset) -- anyone can edit anything.

There are checks and balances, however, there is still a wide margin for error.

As I commented on Mr. Taylor's blog, it's always a good idea to cross reference information. Don't just assume that because it's in WikiPedia, it must be true and definitive.

My 2 cents :)

Amy email -

I am absolutely in agreement with you and your love for Wikipedia. I am a college student majoring in public relations, so of course I spend a pretty significant amount of time doing research on many different things. Wikipedia is great because the information can be changed and updated by many different people so it is always current. However, since anyone can go in and change the information that is posted, there is an issue with accuracy. But I believe that this is an issue with any information that can be found online. The fact is that along with all the benefits of new technology comes many set backs as well. In reality, anyone can post anything on the internet whether it is true or not. And, unfortunately, with something as indescribably massive as the world wide web it is impossible to regulate...even for wikipedia. The lesson is, you should always always always double and triple check your information. Never assume that it is always going to be correct because you think that the site it came from is legitimate. You just never know!

TrackBack Link