Stacy Schiff wrote about Wikipedia as though it would be a very good source to use in any research project. She does go on to point out some of the down sides of Wikipedia, but on the whole, her tone seems to be approving of the site. She mentions IBM and their input, but I’m not sure why. It seemed as though she just needed another source to quote from, but she never explained their relationship to Wales or Wikipedia.
Schiff did speak with authority however. Even thought I know that Wikipedia shouldn’t be used as a source because so many people can edit it, and there are only so many watching over it, in the middle of the article, I found myself agreeing with what she was saying. It seemed as though she never doubted herself on her point of view, and had enough evidence with interviews from Wales and Sanger but somehow, the article continued to point in favor of Wikipedia.
It was weird to be able to tell what side she was on, despite her never saying anything about it. And though she put the ups and downs of the site, I could tell what side she was on. I thought the history of Wikipedia was interesting, if a bit much. I was like half-way through the article when I realized I haven’t even gotten to the argument yet. Wales seemed a bit fishy to me, like he didn’t know what he was supposed to say, he just knew he was supposed to defend his website. It also seemed like she didn’t get a whole lot of point of view from Britannica; it could’ve been they all agreed encyclopedias should be kept to the experts, but it just seemed like there wasn’t much in on their behalf.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment