Everything is Miscellaneous

This chapter made me think of various websites that give the option to its users to create an identity. Some websites, like Wikipedia, indicate an important change in authority: the absence of authority creates an authority of itself. People trust the content of websites when they actively choose to pursue knowledge, giving the website a social link to other like-minded people. This makes all blogs in some way communicative with one another.

If someone read this chapter and wrote an angry view of it, that person might say that there was too much of an emphasis on the site Wikipedia. There is a limiting factor in mentioning the economic value of any information not found online, so it would be easy to refute the importance of a believable database of information. I do not think some people know how Wikipedia makes corrections to pages, but the fact that the website is loaded with imperfections is enough to make a reader turn away from the authority of the anonymous dictionary. Wikipedia generalized editor positions, which can turn someone away in search of concrete evidence, but works as a reliable resource for instant information.

In the following sentences from Weinberger, I felt like I could really hear his voice: “Anonymous authors. No editors. No special privileges for experts.”


2 thoughts on “Everything is Miscellaneous

  1. I’m really digging your style of writing! You can really hear your writing voice in this tiny excerpt. My favorite part is your reference to Wikipedia as an ‘Anonymous Dictionary’; very cool. Because in a sense, that is indeed what it truly is!

    My favorite part of this blog is your discussion of editors and those turning away from Wikipedia as a source for concrete evidence, but then others using it as a quick fix for information. Do you think that those editors that turn away from it use it themselves for their personal quick fixes? That may make for an interesting type of study one day. The only reason I say this is due to the fact that generally when you search for something on the web using a search engine (Google, Bing, etc., etc.,) Wikipedia’s result tends to be the first result that pops up, making it very easy for individuals to click away and get that quick fix.

    Nice quote to end on as well. Very straight to the point and matter of fact; I agree that you can definitely hear the writers voice in that quote. Good job đŸ™‚

  2. It really is a quick fix. There is the option to Contribute by using the Talk tab, but approval is made with the specific Wiki criteria in mind during the decision whether to change to your suggestion or not. Potential waste of time? Maybe not.

    It is a quick fix, but there is value in being able to “sum up” an important event, organization, culture, content, language, etc., in a matter of mere minutes. As opposed to a complete ignorance, Wikipedia is there with its recognizable page layout, offering us knowledge from which is generated by fact, logic, and higher ranked editors decisions. So there is value in the content, we just can’t expect this one source to offer a complete reference. Always double check your facts in all writing, right?

    Search engines, specifically Google, always keep a few sponsored sites at the top of the results. Wikipedia is one of those, but not the only one. There is a choice to look beyond the first results, and by using phrases in the search bar such as “site:.edu” you will be given information only from scholarly review articles. The information is usually deep-rooted, but indubitably true nonetheless.

    Thank you!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s