Documents has taken a new form- Wikipedia, technology has transformed ideas and concepts written on paper and posted them online for masses of people to see. Brown, J. S. & P. Duguid. (1996) discuss how documents have always been passed around through groups of people, and essentially is has changed overtime but really the internet is a document. Therefore Wikipedia is great in the fact that many people can enjoy the access to online information, but we have to be careful to see where the information is coming from.
My blog does focus on children’s beauty pageants, but for the op-ed piece I have decided to focus on beauty as a general topic area, as Wikipedia didn’t offer too much information on beauty pageants alone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty is the Wikipedia address and I will be discussing the talk section of this webpage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beauty
.
This talk page allows people to discuss and see multiple views in order to ensure reliable and accurate information. The themes that are present on this talk page are body weight, definitions of beauty, why feminine beauty is also discussed and seen and not masculine beauty, the viewers wanted to change things such as images (picture of a beauty pageant winner, as this focuses mainly on physical appearance), along with beauty being directly related to youth. These themes all touch on the idea of children’s beauty pageants.
Young (mostly) girls who are competing in these pageants are being taught to put a huge emphasis on self-appearance and overall beauty. For the last blog post we had to discuss whether or not we use Wikipedia as a reliable source, and many people said no. After reading these “talk” pages I still stand by my decision of not using Wikipedia as an academic source. Many of the people commenting and making changes have no accountability or real legitimacy. While reading the posts by others, there was no real tension between people, they just stated their opinion and moved on.
In the article Wikinomics and its discontents, Van Dijk, J. & Nieborg, D. (2009) state that Wikiepdia is created by crowds of users who define the information, Wikipedia relies on peer production. This shows the co-creation aspect of Wikipedia, and although this is democratic of the site, because everyone has the equal opportunity to state their opinion, I don’t think this makes the site very reliable.
In one section of the talk, it discusses the image used on the beauty page, which was of a beauty pageant winner. A person referred to as Jcbutler commented on a lot of posts, including this one and when I went to click on them, it shows they have retired. Therefore I wouldn’t say they are a very accurate contributor.
The topic that I found most interesting was how body weight and beauty are rarely discussed in relation to men. A couple people were concerned with this fact, and so am I. I believe this is a western way of thinking, how women are so obsessed with looking good. They participate in hair dye, manicures, pedicures, waxing and many other things to stay looking young and “beautiful”.
All of the information edited for this Wikipedia page seems to be personal opinion on a given topic, most of the people also don’t care what others have to say, as long as their opinion is heard (or seen). Van Dijk, J. & Nieborg, D. (2009) say that Wikipedia is edited by people to satisfy themselves, and get a lot of views, not for the good of the community. I believe this is mostly true, as the posts didn’t seem to be a collaborated agreement. Most people changed what they wanted, when they wanted, and most of these people lacked credibility.
In one section of this talk, called “human beauty” it is discussed that there won’t be a general consensus on one attractive female (again with the feminization of beauty) to post a picture of. The idea is that anyone’s picture who is posted on the beauty page, will be subject to recurring debate and ridicule, when I researched this person they come up as blocked, and therefore even though I believe what they said, by not showing themselves, they don’t show much credibility. Many of the comments are purely based on personal opinion, which let’s face it, isn’t that what beauty is?
When searching through peoples comments, only one had a direct link to who they are, although we can appreciate that, he was just an average person blogging from “his vacation home”.
Royal, C. & Kapila, D. (2009) discuss in their article What’s on Wiki and What’s not….? That although more writers and editors are better than fewer, as this would help to decrease bias and provide more feedback and opinions, allowing all these people to comment also leads to individuals believing the information is inaccurate. They also discuss how current topics are covered more, I saw this first hand, and this is why I had to use a very broad topic area. Therefore we see that Wikipedia is incomplete in certain areas.
I actually do like the idea of masses of people being able to participate openly and having freedom to discuss their ideas. This being said, I still think Wikipedia lacks reliability and credibility as they do allow anyone to share. Despite the fact that everyone can share, only certain people will, Van Dijk, J. & Nieborg, D. (2009) state that only 13% of online users are creators, making the content lack variety and unbiased material.
References
Van Dijk, J. & Nieborg, D. (2009). Wikinomics and its discontents: a critical analysis of Web 2.0 business manifestos. New Media & Society. 11, 5. pp 855-874.
Royal, C. & Kapila, D. (2009). What's on Wikipedia, and What's Not . . . ?: Assessing Completeness of Information. Social Science Computer Review. 27, 1. pp 138-148.
http://theilliterateparent.wordpress.com/
http://ao04rs.wordpress.com/
http://mimmzz.wordpress.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment