As I read through the Wired News and NPR blogs on the hows, when, and "now we know who," is editing Wikipedia for their own gains; it has become more evident to me that Wikipedia's public information parallels in scope to our modern news media...where we are given the "so called news"; but is the information you receive biased information? I cannot help but think of the mythological Trojan Horse of acnient Greek mythology when I read what is supposed to be collaborative effort by knowledgeable people to post an online encyclopadia of information free to the mases, can be edited by anyone, especially by those who are the subject matter of the information. They (being any corporation, federal agency, or other special interest group) simply and easily have their people edit and ultimately skew the information to their advantage. In the case of Diebold, they simply deleted information that drew attention to the weknesses of their systems. It simply reminds me of how we recieve news today..which in my opinion...is opinion and not news. The same goes for Wikipedia, I can read information on a subject that I know little about, and immediately establish a cognitive mental picture of the subject while taking the very real chance that the information I just read was a lie.
I'm not sure how or when I could ever completely trust the information on Wikipedia. I do have hope in the "Wikiscanner" utility developed by the Cal-Tech student. I like knowing that the individual or organization who edits an entry in Wikipedia can now be traced in some way. But there is a flaw in this tool that cannot be be resolved; the flaw being that your IP address can be spoofed by crafty individuals who know how to hide on the internet (by using Proxie Servers). So until there is a more robust way to truly protect the integrity of the information on Wikipedia, I will be very hard pressed to trust it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment