Andrea Tamaro
Inspired by the court succinctly stated in the title to "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", I think a little 'value or not of this site is visited daily by 60 million people, and of 'idea of \u200b\u200bthe project itself.
-
start with the basic issues that permeate the criticisms of the wiki. : Authority and freedom.
Wikipedia (and its cross-cutting projects) allow anyone with a computer, add, remove or change the definition or information any (or almost) entry. This therefore means that anyone, be it with or without knowledge on a given subject, can be transformed, either for the better or for worse, the work of others.
to this freedom of choice connecting the authority: the voices, how they are presented, without being treated by experts, have no academic value. Consequently cite an article in a thesis, it would be very wrong and counterproductive.
These two, quite true, affermzioni lead to the rejection of this tool?
Of course not.
-
We have seen the limits of wikipedia. (Defects, among other things, insurmountable?) Now we see the advantages.
Hard to believe, but the first value is freedom. A contradiction? Quite the contrary.
freedom that leads to a dangerous exposure to 'outside' at the same time allows to take advantage of a rare commodity: neutrality.
on many voices, and then issues, controversial discussion and the possibility that fit all the different points of view, lead to an overall view of the topic.
Ex Abortion: definitions, ethical debate, history, law and so on
This leads to an understanding not vitiated: the abortion argument as that of religion as the position of the legislature.
-
Bearing in mind the example, we pass to another consideration: time. An online encyclopedia can be updated almost instantly after the event happened.
newly discovered chemical formula for the abortion pill? At most a few hours after the news is reported on the item online.
And if this seems of little importance compared to the encyclopedia entry, just remember that wikipedia is not only a traditional encyclopedia: acts as almanac, dictionary of geography, art, filmographies, a chronicle of current events.
-
I mentioned earlier criticism over the authority: even if the items are not handled by experts, the fact remains that may have an informational or cultural value.
For several reasons:
-
should check the notes. May indicate the authoritative books of quotations sull'arogomento Treaty, or newspaper articles and so on. All this makes the most reliable voice.
-
must check the external links. Often links to very influential. Consequently, even the voice can be "infected" but the site to which reference is certainly not. (If I read about the Constitution authoritative opinion and I want to go to the link Quirinale.it)
-
You can also see how it has developed the voice: the voices are discussed, and all the steps in processing saved, so that in case of bad faith (or ignorance) of someone, you can go back.
-
must be remembered, finally, the most important dates items are handled by real experts. You see immediately the size and wealth of detail in which they declined. Seeing is believing, "Esperanto".
And wikipedia can even become a source for essay maybe, just use it properly: how? Comparing the information. Get various sources on a given topic or word, and respect. If you see a lot of coincidences on the wiki entry, it means that it is done well.
A question perhaps is not detected properly when it comes to value or less than wiki. : Most people are not rich enough to buy an encyclopedia. That series, which is equipped with a proven authority, cost money. This materialistic view of saying what? The majority of people do not have the possibility (let alone the will) to exploit this cultural tool: wikipedia is a genuine middle ground.
should however always remember: Use with caution.
But the advantages do not end there.
The other night I was lucky enough to go to a play very nice, that struck me, in addition to the skill and importance of reciting of the theme for the music. Above all, "Let me cry." As soon as I heard it, I said, I have to find out where it came from. On the "normal" internet course I have not found anything so generic. On the wiki. Instead, a time two seconds, I found that Rinaldo is an aria from the opera by Georg Friedrich Handel. Does it matter?
has all the importance of the world, in my opinion. What makes progress culturally, to a certain point, the man unless his curiosity? Wikipedia also allows you to give rein to curiosity and at the same time can give rise to new interests.
Finally, there is a question that maybe you forgot: the link with foreign languages. This involves a number of benefits: increased exposure of subjects (especially English) that perhaps are not sufficiently well covered in detail in their own language and we are practicing reading and you can find translations of words in a dictionary Italian English-"normal" can not be found quickly and accurately. Eg the name of a bird very little known: I write the Italian name, I have the link to the English.
Wikipedia, the source of popular culture and the culture of curiosity; utopian representation of how the world should be: a world where the languages, such as people, not conflict, but linked by the same end the dialogue.
0 comments:
Post a Comment