LIBE 467: Post 7

I have been intrigued for the last few years by the way in which Wikipedia exists: it is, in many ways, a wonderful example of the inherently organic nature of language. Language changes over time to reflect the times, and that is what is occurring with Wikipedia--that is, really, how Wikipedia is possible: the technology provided by the Internet allows a phenomenon like Wikipedia to exist in the first place. So, in that way, Wikipedia is, for lack of a better phrase, a "neat artifact" of our time. I like to think that in 100 years people will look back and say, "Oh yeah, right: in the 1990's the old Internet was born and one of the things that came out of that was the whole Wikipedia thing...I can't believe that that was ever a 'new' idea. Did you know that before Wikipedia they actually hired people to write articles on encyclopedia topics?"

At the same time--and though I have done some reading in this area for the past 18 months--I still can't totally wrap my brain around the idea that any Wikipedia-esque project is reliable and totally valid: at the end of the day, without a "standard" in place (an expert in charge of a particular topic in the encyclopedia), I have a hard time putting my personal trust in "the collective human brain" as an author that can be trusted (what does this say about my trust in humanity?).

One of the interesting voices writing today regarding the notion of "the collective human brain" (i.e., corporate authorship) is Jaron Lanier, specifically in his book You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto, in which he outlines some of the ways in which web 2.0 tools and practices--while, yes, convenient, and while, yes, offering up some neat features and products in the "whiz-bang" realm of slick, candy-coated stylings--actually diminish our capacity for originality and creativity in that web 2.0 users are more prone these days to create a "piece or art" (a new creation) using essentially a templated, pre-programmed slice-and-dice gadget or app rather than creating a thought-out, personalized, original piece of art. He challenges readers to make a digital creation that takes at least 100 times longer to create than is the running time of the end product.

As a reference--and, as many people in class have mentioned, as an initial source of information in the research process--Wikipedia "has its place" within the realm of learning. While I do not think that Wikipedia is necessarily diminishing the creative capacities of its users or creators simply because of the fact that it is a templated, web 2.0 product (was there ever much room for creativity with regards to form when authoring new encyclopedia entries?--the author knows that the entry is going to be printed alongside thousands of other entries, in alphabetical order, with perhaps an illustration), it is certainly very worthwhile to be aware of how form always affects function, how form always affects understanding, and to remain cognizant of this fact when using Wikipedia. Always think to yourself: This information could be presented differently...and as such, how might a different presentation make the meaning or impact different?