Chapter 7

 

Chapter 7

Encyclopedic Anxiety

 

 

The Normativeness of the Reference Work 

At first, This reading mention dictionaries and encyclopedias.

encyclopedia has been more willing to associate the range of their subject, and its treatment, with a larger social program. One reason for this difference between dictionaries and encyclopedias might simply be space.

Wikipedia is situated much more like paper dictionaries than encyclopedias given its near-infinite number of pages.

and this reading say that reason reference works are thought to be normative is that they were marketed as resources for children.

I am editing wikipedia these days. and I practice adding reference in wikipedia.

we should bring reference from objective source.

 

Bias: Progressive and Conservative

encyclopedia has two perspectives. one is progressive perspective and the other is conservative perspective.

Accusations of bias are surprising in their specificity and passion, and prior to Wikipedia. But, we must be careful not to divide the field into extremes, in this case between conservative and progressive poles.

this reading say because an encyclopedia is a mirror of contemporary learning, it offers a valuable opportunity to examine prevailing attitudes and beliefs in a variety of fields. I think that encyclopedia should have vary perspective because many people see. then, we see encyclopedia that has more objective information.

 

Criticisms of Wikipedia and “Web 2.0”

An informative resource for this chapter is Wikipedia’s “Criticism of Wikipedia

I wonder why wikipedia and web2.0 are criticised. wikipedia and web 2.0 is helpful for us. this reading say that Criticism of the concept: the wiki model, usefulness as a reference, suitability as an encyclopedia, anti-elitism as a weakness, systemic bias in coverage, systemic bias in perspective, difficulty of fact-checking, use of dubious sources, exposure to vandals, exposure to political operatives and advocates, prediction of failure, privacy concerns, quality concerns, threat to traditional publishers, “waffling” prose and “antiquarianism,” anonymous editing, copyright issues, the “hive mind.”, etc.

 

In the following sections, there are four themes that are collaborative practice, universal vision, encyclopedic impulse, and technological inspiration.

 

-Collaborative Practice

There are elements to this in the arguments about Wikipedia,

Describing how knowledge is constituted can be difficult, but one can identify three ways for how we might think of knowledge production throughout history.

First, we must admit that the hermit’s encyclopedia, devoid of all contact with the words of others, would be of little use.

Second, the production of a reference work eventually exceeded the capability of any one person.

Finally, there is Wikipedia and other open contents.

In wikipedia, we can practice together. but, some wikipedians can have other opinion. so, after I edit any part, other person can modify.

In this parts, person who edited own writing may be angry.

The important point was that Wikipedians typically rejected any characterization of Wikipedia as some sort of smart mob. and This alleged “core belief” is not one which is held by me, nor as far as I know, by any important or prominent Wikipedians.

 

-Universal Vision

A simple summary of the universal encyclopedic vision is its aspiration of expansiveness. The universal vision persisted into the network age, becoming more modest in its hope of prompting world peace, but pushing accessibility even further. Critics of Wikipedia find this to be a cockeyed dream that is quickly becoming an all-too-real nightmare, and liken the universal vision to failed utopias and feared dystopias. Wikipedia is said to favor mediocrity over expertise.

wikipedia is created by everyone. Interestingly, critics and supporter alike recognize threads of Enlightenment and modern values in contemporary knowledge work. In this argument about how Wikipedia is collaboratively produced we see a larger argument about authority, its institutions, individual autonomy, as well as possible consequences for content production.

 

-Encyclopedic Impulse

Wikipedians can be a similarly compulsive and eccentric lot.

So much so that some refer to themselves as Wikipediholics with a case of editcountitis, “a serious disease consisting of an unhealthy obsession with the number of edits you have made to Wikipedia.”

One’s edit count is a sort of coin of the realm. some might save a Wikipedia page after every tweak, whereas others may edit “offline” and paste it back when done in a single edit. This is advantage of wikipedia. Encyclopedic impulse also criticism of wikipedia.

 

-Technological Inspiration

The wikipedia is now a standard source of reference for millions of people including school children doing their homework and post-graduates doing research. Inevitably, in an experiment on this scale lots of entries have turned out to be wrong, mostly without mal-intent.

I think that Technological inspiration is limited in wikipedia. Usually, reference of wikipedia is limited from news, book, website, journal. so, wikipedia is criticised about technological inspiration.

Yet the critics don’t accept even this more moderated appreciation of Wikipedia as being imperfect but surprisingly good. and Orlowski writes such sentiments are akin to saying: “Yes it’s garbage, but it’s delivered so much faster!”

 

This reading say "although technology can inspire, it can cause others to despair."

 

 

Conclusion

I generalize the argument by briefly looking to the past for how reference works have been involved in a larger conservative versus progressive tension, and by asking how Wikipedia might be entangled in a similar debate today.

On this point, the conversation about Wikipedia can be understood with respect to a handful of themes. Clearly, the way in which content is produced has changed.

 

I don't understand that criticism about universal vision.

this chapter say that universal encyclopedic vision is its aspiration of expansiveness. I think that it is good for encyclopedic to expansive information.

but, In this reading, it express that universal vision is one of Criticisms of wikipedia. I want to know what this mean exactly.