I thought the text was rather interesting, actually, considering me as a socio-phobic (at least, to some extent, hehe).
Wearable computers at this time and age seems like, not perhaps sci-fi, but at least like a pretty excentric idea. (Note: I remember that Levi's or Diesel had some special jacket in a very limited edition, where all kinds of music players and stuff were integrated. This was around the early 2000's definitely, and I haven't heard of it since.)
It's hard not to agree that the cell phone revolution definitely has given birth to a whole new way of opening up informational networking and open communication. Personally I don't use my cell phone very often (I don't have a home phone, so it does take it's place but nevertheless I don't have to use it that much) but I sure am relying on the fact that I can have it with me anywhere, which basically is the reason I don't have a "land phone" at home.
Regarding the meeting appliances developed for mobile phones, I personally, feel neglected, kind of. I feels strange having a phone, which is made for communication purposes, and not being UTTERLY dependent on it, but it feels worse seeing how social exhibitionism has turned out to not only be marketable, but a "necessity", of sorts, for this generation. Rant. Ignore if you must.
In many senses the concept of the mobile "phone" isn't at all relevant in this text since Rheingold relies on its (in some cases, possible) application(s), and not on its function (as a simple communications device). And that's what so fascinating about mobile phones, they do everything except ring people (because then you get cancer and die. sry, late.)
Do I think the "mobile revolution" is good or bad? Well, diplomatic as I am, I will just say that everything gets the purpose which we apply on this certain object, and as such the cell phone has, for now, proven to be a low-tech but socially interesting phenomena, which definitely has a chance to change our notion of communications as well as social structures.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Wikipedia
Wikipedia and the traditional encyclopedia
After some moments of thought I decided to make my search query "HDTV" as it is a technical term which has some relevance to me personally, but also being interesting to see how deep these encyclopedias go. The "opponent" is Encyclopedia.com which does its searches on multiple sources/encyclopedias.
The first thing I noticed, and I've seen this many times over by this stage, is that the Wiki article was literally enormous compared to the quite meager description given to me by the multiple result search on Encyclopedia.com. The Oxford Pocket Dictionarys article was only one short sentecne. This could of course be explained be the fact that it is a POCKET dictionary, but the World Encyclopedia and Britannica Concise Enc. was not very helpful either. Also, I noted some marginal occurences of "faulty" language, where small portions of text/words would be plain bad.
There is some difference in how they present their information, also. In traditional encyclopedias (at least in EB in their television article) the information is presented linearly (not unexpected, of course) and as a narrative story. A standard (longer) article is presented in an index, which often contains many viewpoints on a certain topic, much thanks to the fact that many types of people contribute to the site.
Seen as a collective experience, Wikipedia could be said to promote action and cooperation instead of passive information gathering (although I haven't done any contribution to Wikipedia myself). In regards to the nationalist statement on the blog, I personally have a really hard time seeing Wikipedia as something nationally closed. Except the fact that the Wiki is translated into many languages, the fact still remains that English, which is the most commonly used language of the Wikipedias, has authors and contributors from all around the world adding to the knowledge base as opposed to more "nationally bound" cultures, such as icelandic, which is hardly talked anywhere except in Iceland.
Culturally, Wiki has a slight tradition of being quick to embrace pop culture phenomena which is also felt when comparing my chosen query, HDTV, with a traditional encyclopedia. Not perhaps in the regard that HDTV is something very "new" (it's been around as a term since the 80's, and been practically used since the early 90's) but it has had a "techie" stamp since HDTV's have been released on a more massive scale these last few years. It has had an appeal to the common man, or the nerd, and not the academic in particular.
Also, the biggest flaw with Wikipedia has been its lack of dedicated higher-educated professors, the ones doing the traditional encyclopedias. Wiki has had great success in attaining a wide "normal" user-base, which indeed has proven quite skillful in uploading often-times very good information, but the lack of experts could possibly be a setback.
Wiki as a temporal experience is also of some interest. Just as the corrections in daily papers, which "no one" reads, misinformation can be devastating as it is further carried out in information networks, discussions, media, other articles on Wikipedia etc. The lack of a "completed" article lays bare this very notion which makes Web 2.0 and immediately accessible information lucrative but also potentially dangerous. At the same time, the immediate-ness of Wiki (and other Web 2.0 applications/sites) is its strenght. By being able to provide information as it is happening/unfolding it becomes a sort of (hopefully, and in its best possible case) an objective lens through which users can understand current situations. The downside of this is obvious though; In most cases (if you're not actually at the place which you report on) you have only second-hand information, which could possible (and according to some, is always) biased or ready-made for a certain audience which gives you as a Wiki editor rather limited information to give out in the article.
And yes, even if it's always a little nervy to say it, I think Wikipedia is a great site. As long as you are aware about what Wiki is, I think that the site does what it is intended to.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/SearchResults.aspx?Q=hdtv
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hdtv
After some moments of thought I decided to make my search query "HDTV" as it is a technical term which has some relevance to me personally, but also being interesting to see how deep these encyclopedias go. The "opponent" is Encyclopedia.com which does its searches on multiple sources/encyclopedias.
The first thing I noticed, and I've seen this many times over by this stage, is that the Wiki article was literally enormous compared to the quite meager description given to me by the multiple result search on Encyclopedia.com. The Oxford Pocket Dictionarys article was only one short sentecne. This could of course be explained be the fact that it is a POCKET dictionary, but the World Encyclopedia and Britannica Concise Enc. was not very helpful either. Also, I noted some marginal occurences of "faulty" language, where small portions of text/words would be plain bad.
There is some difference in how they present their information, also. In traditional encyclopedias (at least in EB in their television article) the information is presented linearly (not unexpected, of course) and as a narrative story. A standard (longer) article is presented in an index, which often contains many viewpoints on a certain topic, much thanks to the fact that many types of people contribute to the site.
Seen as a collective experience, Wikipedia could be said to promote action and cooperation instead of passive information gathering (although I haven't done any contribution to Wikipedia myself). In regards to the nationalist statement on the blog, I personally have a really hard time seeing Wikipedia as something nationally closed. Except the fact that the Wiki is translated into many languages, the fact still remains that English, which is the most commonly used language of the Wikipedias, has authors and contributors from all around the world adding to the knowledge base as opposed to more "nationally bound" cultures, such as icelandic, which is hardly talked anywhere except in Iceland.
Culturally, Wiki has a slight tradition of being quick to embrace pop culture phenomena which is also felt when comparing my chosen query, HDTV, with a traditional encyclopedia. Not perhaps in the regard that HDTV is something very "new" (it's been around as a term since the 80's, and been practically used since the early 90's) but it has had a "techie" stamp since HDTV's have been released on a more massive scale these last few years. It has had an appeal to the common man, or the nerd, and not the academic in particular.
Also, the biggest flaw with Wikipedia has been its lack of dedicated higher-educated professors, the ones doing the traditional encyclopedias. Wiki has had great success in attaining a wide "normal" user-base, which indeed has proven quite skillful in uploading often-times very good information, but the lack of experts could possibly be a setback.
Wiki as a temporal experience is also of some interest. Just as the corrections in daily papers, which "no one" reads, misinformation can be devastating as it is further carried out in information networks, discussions, media, other articles on Wikipedia etc. The lack of a "completed" article lays bare this very notion which makes Web 2.0 and immediately accessible information lucrative but also potentially dangerous. At the same time, the immediate-ness of Wiki (and other Web 2.0 applications/sites) is its strenght. By being able to provide information as it is happening/unfolding it becomes a sort of (hopefully, and in its best possible case) an objective lens through which users can understand current situations. The downside of this is obvious though; In most cases (if you're not actually at the place which you report on) you have only second-hand information, which could possible (and according to some, is always) biased or ready-made for a certain audience which gives you as a Wiki editor rather limited information to give out in the article.
And yes, even if it's always a little nervy to say it, I think Wikipedia is a great site. As long as you are aware about what Wiki is, I think that the site does what it is intended to.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/SearchResults.aspx?Q=hdtv
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hdtv
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)