Wikipedia

My previous conceptions about Wikipedia were that it is a good website to go to for background information on a subject, but can't always be trusted as it can be updated by anyone. I have heard over and over that Wikipedia is "not a reliable source" but this video makes me appreciate the amount of work that goes into it and realize that perhaps it is more credible than we give it credit for. As Wales says, it is an ongoing project and is always being revised in order to strive for accuracy.

I was surprised by the "anti-creditentialist" theory- that amateurs have as much, if not more, to contribute than professionals. They don't care who you are, only that you know what you are talking about. I also was surprised by the statement that they want a broad contributor base so that the knowledge of Wikipedia reflects the knowledge of the world. I think this is a way that we should think of Wikipedia more often, rather than as a non-credible source.

As for writing in electronic environments, Wikipedia has created an endless opportunity for writers. Writers can pick a topic and write about it whenever they feel like it. They can also decide to edit and improve what has already been written. Writers can pick any topic and make their own "wiki" of it, such as what Wales mentions of the show 24. Wikipedia has created innumerable opportunities for writers to express themselves in this electronic environment. Wales even said that there is no substitute for the written word when asked if he thought one day videos would overtake Wikipedia. He said that it is the most natural and best medium for learning about many things.

The main difference I see between the writing in a wiki and a blog are the aspects of personality and first vs third person. Wikipedia is written mainly as informative, credible articles in the third person, whereas blogs mainly have a first person point of view and a clear personality. Blogs are also much more informal most of the time.