Text is not Dead

While reading Wikipedia’s articles on itself and on using it as a research tool, I’ve found that it has an elevated sense of its contributors and users.

Wikipedia has certain advantages over other reference works. Being web -based and having a very large number of active writers and editors, it provides fast coverage of many topics and provides hyperlinking, unavailable in traditional media.

Also, it often provides access to subject matter that is otherwise inaccessible in non-native languages. Since English Wikipedia editors come from all around the world, the relative lack of non-Western topics found in many Western publications is significantly less noticeable on Wikipedia.

In comparison with most other web-based resources, Wikipedia’s open approach tremendously increases the chances that any particular factual error or misleading statement will be promptly corrected. As Wikipedia is a collaborative, ongoing project, one may also ask questions of an article’s authors. And thanks to its extensive hyperlinks and external links usage wiki can be an excellent guide to other related material, both on and off Wiki.

While it cites problems of accuracy and recommends ways to understand an article and assess its value in research, if someone were to use it as a research tool or even cite it in a paper, I am doubtful that that person would have read the article pertaining to how to do so. It suggests examining an article’s history, time in existence, and how many sources it cites. However, the vicious cycle is that an article’s reliability is strongly reliant on the topic’s popularity and the Wikipedia community’s attention to keeping it accurate and, as Wikipedia would say, unbiased.

I find Wikipedia to be a quick and convenient way to double check something I already think to be true, such as the birthplace of a certain writer, the year a movie was made, the symbol for a Greek god, if zinc helps vitamin c get absorbed or is it magnesium that aids with calcium, etc. I do not use it to further understand the issues in Afganistan, the case with the Yale killing, or wether the balloon boy story was a hoax. However, Wikipedia upholds its accuracy on such types of current events.

Wikipedia often produces excellent articles about newsworthy events within days of their occurrence, such as the 2007 Wimbledon Championships, Lal Masjid siege, Kidnapping of Alan Johnston or the Benoit family tragedy . Similarly, it is one of the few sites on the web even attempting neutral, objective, encyclopedic coverage of popular culture, including television series or science fiction. It is also developing across-the-board global coverage of subject areas where for one reason or another existing sources are highly fragmented, including sports such as football/soccer and golf.

I noticed the words, neutral and objective in the above quote. Really? People’s whose careers are to provide the public with information are often accused of biasness; however, Wikipedia users are supposed to feel it’s a more objective news source than NY Times, CNN, Wall Street Journal, etc. How do less experienced researchers and less avid followers of current events learn to differentiate between an editable, fallable source and a vetted one? Wikipedia puts its integrity in the hands of the general public, and the users trust it . Wikipedia itself cannot even remain consitent on its value as a research tool. It asserts that it should not be cited accademically but goes on to explain how one can determine the worthiness of the information for research purposes. One question prevails: how do I use this thing?

I think this video is great.  He says, “reality has become a commodity.”

Wikipedia, like Google, thrives on it’s accessibility and convenience. Just like food that’s unhealthy, people eat it because it’s easy, less expensive (in the case of Wikipedia-free), and everywhere. To eat a healthy diet, a person has to know that special section of the grocery store, the brands that actually are healthy versus the ones that claim to be, and be willing to spend the extra money on vegetables and lean meats. I promise that the metaphor is over and that I had a point in making it.

As a source, Wikipedia is easy, so easy to search, use, and read. As a format to contribute to, I find it less so, but that’s a whole other post. A flaw that everyone seems to be aware of but bothers few is its check and balance system (or lack there of), the existence of bias (or even defamatory) entries, and the fact that the readers are the writers. Before Wikipedia, people relied of Webster’s Dictionary, Encyclopedia Britanica, etc. No one would have bought the Encyclopedia of Kasey or Shoemaker’s Thesaurus (except maybe my mother.) The source of information was required to me more reliable, even infallible, and the standard came from the users of the source. The weakness in Wikipedia is the same as its strength. The standards are set by the users, and the content is only as reliable as the system can allow. An article on Physorg.com explains my point.

Traditional media impose a set of practices and institutions that enable consumers to evaluate the trustworthiness of information, says Nunberg. “When I walk into a library, I know everything was screened several times: by editors, publishers, librarians. I assume the writer was someone good enough to have been given a book contract.” The web eliminates those mechanisms, he says, and so “puts more of a burden on the user than the world of print.” Calling that problem a technological one overlooks its complexity, says Nunberg: “You have to have a sense of what’s out there on the web, who put it up, and why they put it up.”

Finding Dulcinia says it a bit more bluntly.

As Wikipedia can be edited by anyone with an Internet connection, it’s subject to changes by users who falsify entries. Wikipedia claims that peer reviewers quickly delete this “vandalism.” However, it’s been shown that for less researched topics, the false information can remain online for extended periods of time. When surfing Wikipedia, take the information you read with a grain of salt. It’s recommended to never cite Wikipedia in any academic work.

Even Wikipedia itself acknowledges, to some extent, its flaws.

Wikipedia acknowledges that it should not be used as a primary source for serious research.^[13] Librarian Philip Bradley stated in an October 2004 interview with The Guardian that the concept behind the site was a “lovely idea,” but, “practically, I wouldn’t use it; and I’m not aware of a single librarian who would. The main problem is the lack of authority. With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data is reliable, as their livelihood depends on it. But with something like this, all that goes out the window.”^[14] Robert McHenry and Paul Vallely similarly noted that readers of Wikipedia can not know who has written the article they are reading - it may or may not have been written by an expert.^[6]

The issues are not secret. The weakness is obvious. What’s the problem? It seems, to me at least, that no one cares. The internet and the entire notion of readily available information has created a general apathy for value and accuracy. When everyone is a contributor, the user has to make more effort to distinguish between the knowledgeable and inaccurate. And, the internet is not typically the place to ask users to make more of an effort than they have to in order to obtain information.

The simple, clean page with colorful letters looks harmless enough.  People, including me, use Google for every kind of search from the mundane to the incredibly important.  If I need to find information fast, I trust, yes trust, Google to be the most efficient way to get it.  However, even if I don’t need it within seconds with very little searching, I still use the familiar Google to search for recipes, that book for which I can only remember part of the title, movie reviews, videos I’ve heard about, and great restaurants- see, mundane.

When I search using Google, I am completing a trade. I give them multiple codes and pieces of information about me, my location, search history (which likely includes purchase history), and fragments of my email usage.  Is it a fair trade?  Even if I just want to find something using Google Maps, which is infinitely better than Mapquest, i give them all that information about me and my computer.  It’s a simple exchange, except for the fact that Google always gets as much information from me as it can, but sometimes all I get is the name of a song I heard only part of on the radio.

Also, is trade really fair when there’s one place to plug into to get the information?  Knowing this, are we devaluing our own privacy for the opportunity to gain information about something else?  And, if we devalue it, how can we expect to get a fair exchange for it?

Google is a remarkable power, without a doubt. Close to their ten-year anniversary, David Smith wrote about this growing power in an article. In quoting Andrew Keen, he points out one of the major downfalls of Google being a giant that cannot be toppled:

But Keen has a warning about the gatekeepers of cyberspace. ‘They have amassed more information about people in 10 years than all the governments of the world put together. They make the Stasi and the KGB look like the innocent old granny next door. This is of immense significance. If someone evil took them over, they could easily become Big Brother.’

As Stan Lee poignantly puts it, “with great power comes great responsibility.” And, Google addresses that responsibility with the motto, “don’t be evil.” I think this is a bit too simple. According to Josh McHugh’s article in Wired, Sergey Brin, one of the founding father’s of Google, is the company’s 29-year-old moral compass. One person wrestles with the ethical issues growing out of one of the most powerful companies in the world- one person. Brin is the defining element in what is “evil.” The concept is great in theory:

It’s built around the recognition that everything we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible standards of ethical business conduct. We set the bar that high for practical as well as aspirational reasons: Our commitment to the highest standards helps us hire great people, who then build great products, which in turn attract loyal users.

However, nothing is as black and white as Google’s policy would indicate. One example is the issue with China. As explained by Wired, when the Chinese government, anticipating dissent among the citizen, shut down access to Google, the compromise was a filter. Those in China could use Google for everything but certain searches, such as human rights. Those particular searches directed the user to a government-approved page. I wonder how that arrangement factored into the overly simple mantra of “don’t be evil.” Evil has the connotation of being extreme. A better motto may be, “always be good” or “do the right thing.” Not upholding the golden standards of Google is not necessarily evil, but the company walking a thin moral line.

I have to admit that my life is definitely easier with Google. I find that I rely on it… more than I should. However, recently, along with many others, I have begun to question Google’s awesome, all encompassing power. Google Earth, Google Maps, Google Books, and Google Mail have built a world where one could hardly survive without the entity. The recent controversy over Google Books has made me think about the notion of copyright, and the issue of cookies has made me question everything from the security of my privacy to the safety of my hard drive. In short, I am concerned, aware, cautious, but still reliant. The ability that Google has to make people need it in spite of what they know about it is unlike anything I’ve seen in marketing. I haven’t tried yet, but I am curious if I can go one week, even one day, without it. I found this video that, while two years old, reflects my thoughts over Google’s power.

Is Google Wave the next newest and most advanced internet communication tool? Is it the new Twitter or Facebook, or is it perhaps the new MySpace or Blue Ray disc. True, time may tell on that last one, but our modern culture is inundated with the newest device or internet tool on nearly a monthly basis. One can hardly keep up with Apple alone. Does the brand Google pave the way to success for such ventures?

Apparently, the birth of technology can lead to the death of another. Computers killed typewriters, cell phones killed land lines and long distance companies, and email killed the written letter. I once thought that email was like the internet itself; they each fed the other and were the key to each other’s survival. However, Jessica Vascellaro, writing for the Wall Street Journal, asserts that Twitter and Facebook have already begun to make email obsolete:

These new services also make communicating more frequent and informal—more like a blog comment or a throwaway aside, rather than a crafted email sent to one person. No need to spend time writing a long email to your half-dozen closest friends about how your vacation went. Now those friends, if they’re interested, can watch it unfold in real time online. Instead of sending a few emails a week to a handful of friends, you can send dozens of messages a day to hundreds of people who know you, or just barely do.

Not being entirely familiar with Wave, I consulted Google’s partner in crime, Wikipedia, for answers. Of course, answers were plenty:

Waves, described by Google as “equal parts conversation and document”, are hosted XML documents that allow seamless and low latency concurrent modifications.^[7] Any participant of a wave can reply anywhere in the message, edit the content and add participants at any point in the process. Users can reply to blips within waves. Recipients are notified of changes/replies in all waves they are active in and then view the changes when they subsequently access a given wave. In addition, waves are live. All replies/edits are seen real-time, letter by letter, as they are typed by the other collaborators. Multiple participants may edit a single wave simultaneously in Google Wave. Thus, waves not only can function as e-mail and threaded conversations but also as an instant messaging service, merging the functions of e-mail and instant messaging.

Trendy, a bit complicated, and fast are all traits that will probably feed this development’s success. If Wave becomes the new main attraction on the internet, what will happen to Twitter, Facebook, Instant Messaging, and Email. I begin to wonder just how big an empire Google will become. In an entity where power can belong to most everyone, I question whether Google owning so much of it is good for the internet and for the users.

As people post more and more about themselves, tag friends in photos, and take quizzes to find out which Disney princess, ice-cream flavor, or X-Men character they are, questions of privacy on Facebook become increasingly important. How secure is one’s profile? What happens to the status updates, the notes, and most importantly, the pictures people post?

In spite of these questions, Facebook continues to attract more users, and the users post more private information about themselves. To add to that, institutions and organizations are learning to weed through what people share to make determinations about them.

A blogger writes about two MIT students who developed what they termed project “Gaydar.” They use friend lists along with other information to figure out a person’s sexual orientation. Quoting a source, the blogger says the following:

“Even if you don’t affirmatively post revealing information, simply publishing your friends’ list may reveal sensitive information about you, or it may lead people to make assumptions about you that are incorrect,” said Kevin Bankston, senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit digital rights organization in San Francisco. “Certainly if most or many of your friends are of a particular religious or political or sexual category, others may conclude you are part of the same category – even if you haven’t said so yourself.”

Marc Rotenberg writes about the privacy issue on The Huffington Post:

Modern privacy begins with the understanding that personal information will be widely accessible. That’s as true for web 2.0 as it was for the early Internet, and for the telephone. It’s a paradox to be sure. Someone once said, “we must protect privacy to ensure the free flow of information.” That’s exactly right.

Privacy is essential to the survival of the whole of social media. While the social media site itself may make every effort to guard the user’s privacy, it can do very little about the information people freely post or the actions of other entities whose main goal is study that information and make determinations about people.