Atlas48
/
cracker
1
1
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Created Blog 1

This commit is contained in:
Jay Agaskar 2018-10-05 16:36:17 -04:00 committed by GitHub
parent e410f7ce19
commit d87a6698f2
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
1 changed files with 11 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

11
Blogs/Blog 1 - Encyclopedic Anxiety Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
Blog 1
Reading from Encyclopedic Anxiety by Joseph Reagle. Available online: https://reagle.org/joseph/2010/gfc/chapter-7.html
The most intriguing reading for me this week was in Chapter 7 of Reagle's article. It came to me as a surprise when the author mentioned Wikipedia was first thought of as "marketed (...) resources for children", since it is (now) highly regarded as a reputable encyclopedia despoite certain controvercies. “The implication was that any parent who failed to buy an encyclopedia for the youngster was depriving a child of the opportunity of doing well in school, and, ultimately, in life”. I found this to be an interesting quote; it's now turned on its head. If you were to look into the average household around thr world, not everyone has an encyclopedia, and instead, everyone has access to Wikipedia. Furthermore, I can't conclude one is a bad parent because their children does not have access to an encyclopedia. Personally, my dad rather bases whether people do well in their lives on the amount of novels or non-fictions on their book shelves. I had a encyclopedia-lacking childhood and am ever so proud of my dad.
Reagle argues in his article about Wikipedia's child safety, ultimately addressing "concerns about age appropriateness partly through the provision of a Simple English Wikipedia for use by children". This begs the question why it was marketed for children on its launch. Perhaps it becuase it wasn't solely written by reputable authors? Or because it was written in simple English that any layman could understand? This particular section of Chapter 7 was surprising becuase you would have never associated the site being for children. Through this simple quote you could see the shift in technology and the impact that the digital revolution has had. The Internet has just been invented, people remain skeptical of Wikipedia after using a hard copy for generations. Therefore, the notion of "Wikipedia is an unreliable source" has been hardwired into schools.
Slowly and surely, Wikipedia will gain a different connotation, as seen by what it was just a couple of years ago. We can ask at what point did it change? It certainly seems to be profound; within the past week MY personal connotation has infact changed. I believe by doing this Wikipedia assignment, I can understand the extent each article goes through (the original research needed, valididty by Wikimedia groups, talk pages), asking whether this is an unreliable source amongst the vast unmoderated majority on the Internet. The Library of Congress now digitalizing all scholarly articles written, as well as tweets, says a lot about the direction we are going upon rapid imrovements in technology. I was surprised because I was born in the age of the Internet, I have no experience with using physical encyclopedias. However, know what Wikipedia is now no longer marketed as resources for children. Not only does it serve as an online encyclopedia, it is a medium for the curious who do not need to "go to parents for help", and get answers independently.
-Jay Agaskar