Monday, December 29, 2008
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
You know what pisses me off about Tom Cruise?
He always has to be the good guy.
Always.
Even when he's playing a fucking Nazi, he has to be the good guy.
Always.
Even when he's playing a fucking Nazi, he has to be the good guy.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Wikipedia
Occasionally I come across articles about some person or organization trashing Wikipedia, particularly its appropriateness in an educational settings. I used to be sort of in line with these people, thinking that Wikipedia was fine for casual research and for getting a start on a topic or finding your way to better sources. I feel like my position on that subject is changing or softening, and I think I understand why so many people, particularly educators, really dislike or even hate Wikipedia:
Wikipedia runs completely counter to and, to a certain extent, undermines our Western notions of knowledge and learning.
In Western-style academia, capital-k Knowledge is perceived as authoritative, unchanging (or at least slow-changing), and "out there" to be gathered by interested people. Learning is to be a largely solitary effort, guided by an authoritative mentor. You might complete some group projects, or study as a team, but at the end of the semester it's up to you to pass the test or write the paper.
Wikipedia, by it's very nature, postulates Knowledge as collaborative, constructed, malleable and subject to debate. According to the Wikipedia epistemology , "knowledge" is something people have, and it's not generic or quantifiable, and it's not necessarily "out there" to be gathered. Knowledge can be created by an individual or group deciding on what they consider to be true, which may or may not be what another group considers true.
Imagine the Encyclopedia Britannica as a model for traditional Western-style knowledge, and that it represents the whole of human understanding. If you were to look at it from one day to the next, nothing at all would change. Even if you were to look at over the course of several editions, that is from one decade to the next, things would be changing but not that fast or dramatically. Articles would be edited and refined, some new topics might be introduced, but all in all a very stable way of knowing.
Now consider Wikipedia as a the sum of all human understanding. It can change rapidly from one moment to the next, and one years edition may be radically and dramatically different from the next. Wikipedia also has a conversation about it's knowledge that a traditional encyclopedia lacks. People are discussing nearly every article there, debating about weather or not this citation should be added, or that point of view be considered, challenging assumptions made and questioning biases; the knowledge in the EB just sort of sits there.
I think the Wikipedia take on what knowledge is is more useful, and closer to the (metaphysical) reality of knowledge. Rarely in my adult/semi-professional life have I been called upon to be as self sufficient in my knowledge as I have been in school. Multiple times per day (at least hourly, on an average day) I consult various fonts of knowledge to do my job: we have a knowledge base of symptoms and resolutions that I search, I've saved emails that have good information, printed off various documents that I use often and am constantly asking questions of my co-workers and superiors. If I was required to "know" my job in the same way I am required to "know" algebra on a final, then I would be fired within a day.
The thing I "know" about my job almost better than almost anything else is where to look for answers.
Wikipedia runs completely counter to and, to a certain extent, undermines our Western notions of knowledge and learning.
In Western-style academia, capital-k Knowledge is perceived as authoritative, unchanging (or at least slow-changing), and "out there" to be gathered by interested people. Learning is to be a largely solitary effort, guided by an authoritative mentor. You might complete some group projects, or study as a team, but at the end of the semester it's up to you to pass the test or write the paper.
Wikipedia, by it's very nature, postulates Knowledge as collaborative, constructed, malleable and subject to debate. According to the Wikipedia epistemology , "knowledge" is something people have, and it's not generic or quantifiable, and it's not necessarily "out there" to be gathered. Knowledge can be created by an individual or group deciding on what they consider to be true, which may or may not be what another group considers true.
Imagine the Encyclopedia Britannica as a model for traditional Western-style knowledge, and that it represents the whole of human understanding. If you were to look at it from one day to the next, nothing at all would change. Even if you were to look at over the course of several editions, that is from one decade to the next, things would be changing but not that fast or dramatically. Articles would be edited and refined, some new topics might be introduced, but all in all a very stable way of knowing.
Now consider Wikipedia as a the sum of all human understanding. It can change rapidly from one moment to the next, and one years edition may be radically and dramatically different from the next. Wikipedia also has a conversation about it's knowledge that a traditional encyclopedia lacks. People are discussing nearly every article there, debating about weather or not this citation should be added, or that point of view be considered, challenging assumptions made and questioning biases; the knowledge in the EB just sort of sits there.
I think the Wikipedia take on what knowledge is is more useful, and closer to the (metaphysical) reality of knowledge. Rarely in my adult/semi-professional life have I been called upon to be as self sufficient in my knowledge as I have been in school. Multiple times per day (at least hourly, on an average day) I consult various fonts of knowledge to do my job: we have a knowledge base of symptoms and resolutions that I search, I've saved emails that have good information, printed off various documents that I use often and am constantly asking questions of my co-workers and superiors. If I was required to "know" my job in the same way I am required to "know" algebra on a final, then I would be fired within a day.
The thing I "know" about my job almost better than almost anything else is where to look for answers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)