We haven’t quite got this whole open collaborative knowledge thing worked out. Wikipedia’s spectacular success created concerns of authenticity and gave rise to Citizendium (which relies on experts to validate or approve articles). Google’s decision to launch Knol suggests they are concerned about Wikipedia’s popularity as a first choice for information (a title Google certainly doesn’t want to relinquish). EdTechDev argues for Knols Over Wikipedia and Citizendium based on the ability for individuals with a bias to slant information sources excessively in a preferred direction. I can see the basis for this concern. It stems from the perceived failing of Wikipedia as an accurate and reliable source. But I’m concerned about what we lose in the shift back to a system of selected experts. While I desire accurate information, for me the big lesson of Wikipedia has always been threefold: access, collaboration, and democracy. Any model of information authenticity needs to be worked out within the framework of those three elements. Google’s Knol succeeds only on access.
-
‹ Home
Contents
-
Categories
-
Tags
Adoption Articles Blogging Classification/Ontologies Collaboration Community Connectivism Content Content Management Copyright/IP/DRM Design Elearning Evaluation/Assessment/ROI Games/Simulations Information Architecture Innovation Instructional Design Knowledge Management Learning Learning Objects Legal LMS Media Networks Open Source Podcasting Random Thoughts Research Resources ROI Search Semantic Web SNA Social Standards Storytelling Teaching Technology Theories Tools Trends Usability Wiki Wireless/PDAs XML
-
Archives
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
- February 2003
- January 2003
- December 2002
- November 2002
- October 2002
- September 2002
- August 2002
- July 2002
- June 2002
Blogroll
-
RSS Feeds
-
Meta
2 Comments
The main issue I have in going directly to a source such as wikipedia is that the internal search engine is much poorer at finding what I want in wikipedia than google.
The ability to search wikipedia articles specifically, or to exclude them, is one of the many reasons I don’t think people will literally type wikipedia.com in the first step to satisfy their information needs.
I also find that wikipedia is a good starting point for, say, reading about rare medical conditions- often there is more general information than in easily accessible equivalents. However, supplementary information such as treatment regimes, doses etc. clearly can’t be relied on from such a source.
Just as google has provided a good starting point for web searches, wikipedia provides a good starting point for web resources- complemented by others.
I speak here as a volunteer press contact for Wikipedia … we really succeed on accessibility: Britannica may be the gold standard we aim for, but Wikipedia’s right there in everyone’s browser. Convenience always wins. See worse is better. That said, we *try* to be as good as we can. Really!