About this Blog

This is the course blog for Fan Culture (FMST 85) at Swarthmore College, a space to raise questions, continue conversations, and share resources. Use the page tabs above to navigate to the syllabus and readings, or the Login / Site Admin link (under the Meta menu, below) to create a new post.

Calendar

March 2008
M T W T F S S
« Feb   Apr »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

Announcements

The Film and Media Studies Spring Screening will take place Thursday, May 8, at 7:30 in the LPAC Cinema. All are invited to come watch the Video Production Lab and senior film projects!

Wikipedia in the NYT

March 17th, 2008 by Nicole

I was looking through the New York Times today, and there was a fairly negative article
on the Wikipedia founder, Jimmy Wales. I don’t really have much of an opinion on this article because I don’t really know much about Wikipedia besides what’s in the reading. I was wondering if people would mind talking a bit more about their experiences with Wikipedia and similar sites especially in regards to the reading. Ben made an interesting post before where people got talking in the comments, but I’d like to bring it up again and see what people are thinking and perhaps get more perspectives.

Posted in Industry | 1 Comment »

1 Comment

  1. Ari on 18.03.2008 at 13:21 (Reply)

    The link to the article isn’t working for me so I can’t comment on that. But I have to say that I LOVE Wikipedia. I use it when I want to get some general information about something that I’m not too familiar with. Whether it’s getting some background info on a book I’m reading for a class, a band I might want to check out, or anything that comes to mind that seems interesting or significant but I don’t know much about, I can use this site.

    In response to Ben’s post, I’m generally wary and critical of hierarchies, but in the case of Wikipedia I think a certain degree of hierarchy is necessary. Administrators are needed to ensure that posted information is accurate, objective, clear, and relevant to the topic. If these things are lost, the website completely loses its value. They are also needed to make sure everything in the database runs smoothly.

    That being said, I find Wikipedia to be very accessible. For my “Vietnam and the 60’s” class in high school, we reenacted an event in which a bunch of people tried to levitate the Pentagon using their minds during a Vietnam protest-we used our school. We were then able to add this to our school’s page on Wikipedia. It’s not there anymore for obvious reasons, but we were able to post it nonetheless. So I guess what I’m trying to say is that Greg makes a good point in his response to Ben’s post: Wikipedia isn’t strictly democratic, it’s participatory, and I think that this is for the best.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.