Sunday, June 17, 2012

Blogs vs. Wikis

Wikis and blogs are very similar things with very similar structure used for very different purposes.  Wikipedia is basically an encyclopedia with contributions from anyone that wishes to contribute.
Blogs are "web logs" in which people may regularly post whatever is on their mind.
Thus, the content of Wikis are often objective, and blogs are often subjective.  Content always varies, but in general, people go to wikis for information, and people go to blogs for an interesting read.  Unfortunately, not all blogs are interesting.

Convergence is important in today's networked world because within the network, nearly everything can be accessed without even getting out of a chair.  If content never converges, it creates unnecessary complications.  An example is the use of wikis - most people know that the core of wikis is wikipedia and how it is used as an encyclopedia.  But as you google new things, you may learn that there are very specific wikis that focus on things such as your favorite TV series, or video game company.  Personally, I have made good use of "how-to" wikis in the past, especially when I had a minor emergency and had no idea how to handle it.

Blogging and collaboration can be a power unified force.  If one person says something, not many people will care.  However, if a significant number of people all share the same view AND they show their views through public blogs, it is more likely to raise awareness.  Since blogging is anonymous, it is difficult to measure the power that people hold behind their words.

Let me express how I feel about Internet anonymity first - I believe that no one should take anything said on the Internet unless it can be seen as stalking, or putting someone in physical harm's way.  In the article "Stung by the Perfect Sting," the celebrity that got offended over some anonymous blogger's insults should not have won the lawsuit against the blogger.  I'm not celebrity status, obviously, but thick skin is required to experience the Internet.  Sure, anonymity brings out the worst in people, and as a celebrity, everyone knows you yet you don't know them, but that's part of being a celebrity.  Growing up, especially as a teenager, I played lots of games competitively online, and the amount of garbage I've experienced has provided me with resilient skin.  Newcomers to the Internet are considered "fresh meat" to the anonymous jerks of the Internet, and many people (my friends included, fortunately not me) get a kick out of making people cry on the Internet.  People need to learn that Internet is significantly different from real life, and should adjust their reactions appropriately.



Back to collaboration, if the blog user had the backup of collaboration, there may have been a different outcome to the lawsuit.  I'm no law expert, but I think that it will be very difficult to sue a large group of anonymous people.

Wiki ideas that are new, I am quite stumped on this one.  I feel that wikis are there to answer questions, and people have made wikis for anything I can look up.  The only problem is that people can make wikis, but no one will contribute, and thus there are just a number of blank wikis floating around in cyberspace.  Maybe someone can make a wiki that encourages contributing to and maintaining dead wikis.  I really like the idea mentioned in the article "Wikipedia to Limit Changes to Articles on People" as I personally know people that have edited Wikipedia articles for kicks.  This fixes the problem on the other extreme - people bloating Wikipedia with redundant, useless, and false information.

No comments:

Post a Comment