Videos Relacionados:
The Truth According To Wikipedia
 |
||
The Truth according to Wikipedia More info on http://www.vpro.nl/programma/t... (Dutch)Google or Wikipedia? Those of us who search online -- and who doesn't? -- are getting referred more and more to Wikipedia. For the past two years, this free online "encyclopedia of the people" has been topping the lists of the world's most popular websites. But do we really know what we're using? Backlight plunges into the story behind Wikipedia and explores the wonderful world of Web 2.0. Is it a revolution, or pure hype?Director IJsbrand van Veelen goes looking for the truth behind Wikipedia. Only five people are employed by the company, and all its activities are financed by donations and subsidies. The online encyclopedia that everyone can contribute to and revise is now even bigger than the illustrious Encyclopedia Britannica.Does this spell the end for traditional institutions of knowledge such as Britannica? And should we applaud this development as progress or mourn it as a loss? How reliable is Wikipedia? Do "the people" really hold the lease on wisdom? And since when do we believe that information should be free for all?In this film, "Wikipedians," the folks who spend their days writing and editing articles, explain how the online encyclopedia works. In addition, the parties involved discuss Wikipedia's ethics and quality of content. It quickly becomes clear that there are camps of both believers and critics.Wiki's Truth introduces us to the main players in the debate: Jimmy Wales (founder and head Wikipedian), Larry Sanger (co-founder of Wikipedia, now head of Wiki spin-off Citizendium), Andrew Keen (author of The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet Is Killing Our Culture and Assaulting Our Economy), Phoebe Ayers (a Wikipedian in California), Ndesanjo Macha (Swahili Wikipedia, digital activist), Tim O'Reilly (CEO of O'Reilly Media, the "inventor" of Web 2.0), Charles Leadbeater (philosopher and author of We Think, about crowdsourcing), and Robert McHenry (former editor-in-chief of Encyclopedia Britannica). Opening is a video by Chris Pirillo.The questions surrounding Wikipedia lead to a bigger discussion of Web 2.0, a phenomenon in which the user determines the content. Examples include YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, and Wikipedia. These sites would appear to provide new freedom and opportunities for undiscovered talent and unheard voices, but just where does the boundary lie between expert and amateur? Who will survive according to the laws of this new "digital Darwinism"? Are equality and truth really reconcilable ideals? And most importantly, has the Internet brought us wisdom and truth, or is it high time for a cultural counterrevolution?Broadcast date: April 7, 2008Direction: IJsbrand van VeelenInterviews: IJsbrand van Veelen / Marijntje Denters / Martijn KieftResearch: William de Bruijn / Marijntje DentersProduction: Judith van den BergCommissioning editors: Jos de Putter / Doke Romeijn
Canal: Science & Technology
Añadido: December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm
Autor: VPROinternational
Duración: 48:12
Puntuación: 4.36
Reproducciones: 66138
Etiquetas: 2.0 amateur cult encyclopedia expert internet keen knowledge leadbeater macha o'reilly sanger truth wales web wikipedia
Recomienda este vídeo
Agregar a Favoritos!
Comentarios de http://www.cantaecuador.com
Comentarios de YouTube
|
Pocketass666 (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
Encyclopedia Dramatica has better information anyway...
SweetMusic69 (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
DO NOT DONATE TO WIKIPEDIA! It abuses the ideals of the internet, which is the free exchange of information. A number of its editors enforce their own narrow agendas, and they are generally supported by fellow editors without question!Wikipedia is good for checking out simple facts, but nothing more!
KENSHInKAKKOU (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
donate to wikipedia. it was there for you, now it needs you
winfriedSS (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
my god that phoebe ayers lady in the beginning sounds smug. Now I hate wikipedia because of her; she's so full of herself that she probably sniffs her own farts.
anonymees (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
You should always be critical of ANY source of information. Wikipedia is transparent, and gives you tools to evaluate the credibility of any particular statement, which you do not have in other media.You can see which users have made which edits. You can see the discussion and reasoning that has taken place behind the article. In the discussion you can evaluate how controversial the topic is. The critics also neglect that wikipedia demands sources for facts. Everyones 'truths' are not equal.
Nedplease (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
who atually watched all of this
Idontknowwhat2type (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
the sarcasim in the beginning did not help me stay interested in the video
runescraper822 (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
This is so stupid...But i love my mom deeply...And i don't want to take any chances.Sorry.If you do not copy and paste this onto 10 videos your mom will die in 4 hours
random4evaa (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
I didn't actually watch this cos it looked too long, but personally, i have never found Wikipedia to be unreliable. The only reason people don't trust it is cos anyone can edit it, but, again, I have never found anything on there I haven't found on some other 'reliable' site. It's great, easy, and if you don't like it, don't use it, but don't bag on the people who do.
JMaxwell85 (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
Wikipedia fucking sucks. Filled with false information. PCE can suck my balls.
|