Group items tagged

The poster child of collaboration? A bold statement but is it that far off the truth? Every day Wikipedia helps people around the world find information that is both detailed and related to the topic they have searched. The modern internet is filled with incorrect and purposely misleading information that users can freely access. The user has no idea that the information they are receiving is incorrect so it is quite often trusted. Wikipedia's system of article moderators allows the information to be supplied by anyone but filtered by people considered to be well educated in that chosen field. This means that the information is not as random as other information available throughout World Wide Web. The progression in the Web 2.0 era has been at an exponential rate and Wikipedia has been at the fore front of the revolution as it allows users of the World Wide Web to contribute which is what separates Web 1.0 and web 2.0. So I don't completely agree with the idea that Wikipedia is the poster child of collaboration, however I would suggest that it is the poster child of the Web 2.0 era as it encompasses all that makes the new era so exciting.

I found this article was an interesting read as it discusses Wikipedia's journey in becoming a successful and reliable encyclopedia. While I do consider myself a Wikipedia supporter I did find the article to be incredibly bias in favour of Wikipedia as it speaks extensively with Sue Gardner the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. The article does briefly touch on some negative points about Wikipedia in hearing from Robert McHenry, author and former Editor-in-Chief of Encyclopedia Britannica (Wikipedia's largest competitor) but soon turns back in favour of Wikipedia explaining that its scientific articles are of similar accuracy to that of Encyclopedia Britannica (Solon, 2011). As this article suggests, Wikipedia is evermore becoming a reliable source of information however people still seem to question Wikipedia's reliability. Here are somethings that I found in my own research that can suggest people's lack of confidence in Wikipedia's reliability: * Wikipedia articles that cover obscure and unusual topics tend to present more inaccuracies and errors than those covering mainstream topics - this is because obscure topics receive less traffic and therefore there is less likelihood of errors being corrected (Ball, 2007). * Wikipedia is not an accurate representation of a vast and diverse crowd, in fact "the encyclopedia is missing the voices of people in developing countries, women and experts in various specialties that have traditionally been divorced from tech" (Manjoo, 2009). * Wikipedia has in the past been subject to vandalism with hoax and defamatory article updates (Ball, 2007). Reference: Ball, P. (2007, February 27). The more, the wikier. Nature: International weekly journal of Science. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com Manjoo, F. (2009, September 28). Is Wikipedia a Victim of Its Own Success? Time Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/magazine Solon, O. (2011, January 11). A Decade of Wikipedia, Th

This article provides quite an interesting overview of Wikipedia and how it started off as a "dirty little secret" for some in the earlier years, with its use progressing to be an "accepted part of daily life in the developed world" ten years after its launch. In addition, higher education facilities (Grossek, 2009; CCNMTL, 2008) and companies (Hendrix & Johannsen, 2008; Hasan & Pfaff, 2006) are beginning to discover the advantages of employing wikis in their respective institutions. We are beginning to see that the 'wisdom of the crowds' and 'knowledge management' are important factors in larger organisations. Thus what once started out as an online encyclopaedia and a "dirty little secret" is now branching out and weaving its way into larger businesses, organisations, and educational institutions. Although Wikipedia has suffered its fair share of editing glitches and is not completely error free, as mentioned in this article, Wikipedia has come a long way since its introduction into the Web 2.0 world and is becoming a more commonly used tool. In addition, it has shown us the effects of the 'wisdom of the crowds' and how collaboration can be so important. Speakers at the New Media in Education Conference (CCNMTL, 2008) note that wikis provide such a valuable communication and collaboration platform that they essentially create a virtual classroom- an interactive platform where students can share ideas, edit documents, and collaborate on group projects. Inevitably I do agree with the title of this paper and think that Wikipedia is "The Poster Child for Collaboration", with Wikipedia and wikis weaving their way into educational institutions (Grossek, 2009; CCNMTL, 2008) and companies (Hendrix & Johannsen, 2008; Hasan & Pfaff, 2006) who use them as a collaborative tool. Additional References: CCNMTL (Nov 3rd, 2008). Promoting Collaborative Learning using Wikis. [YouTube Video]. Retrieved 22nd March 2012 from http://www.yout

The introduction of this chapter captivated me because it defined that Youtube is not just a media space for user to consume media but it acts as a platform that provides social networking framework which enable young people to create and share original content while making social connection virtually. This article explains how Youtube has created a participatory culture within young people. The easy and interactive features in Youtube have enabled young people to be pro-active within the online community. By collaborating online through Youtube, young people can express their identity through their creativity, seek support from peers (either from family, close friend or even strangers who have similar interest), learn new skills by watching other people tutorial and engage in public space.  To understand how Youtube enables participatory culture, this article provides thorough explanations on how the framework is supported. There are five different characteristics that form participatory culture in Youtube, these are: low barrier of artistic expression and civic engagement, strong support for creating and sharing project, informal setting of mentorship, belief of the importance of contributions and a sense of social connection. These characteristics illustrate how Youtube users especially young people engage to communicate and exchange ideas with other users virtually. 

Source: Chau, C. (2010), YouTube as a participatory culture. New Directions for Youth Development, 2010: 65-74. Available online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/yd.376/pdf

I found the statistical information in this article very revealing and insightful. But I did find it hard to place within the overall topic. The ability for youth to 'explore identity' and 'acquire new skills' as the article states, are themes that seem to be synonymous when youth cultures are in focus. With this in mind I would assume that this article has relevance to the Knowledge Production and Higher Education topic. I was particularly interested when the article explained the affects that commenting on videos and video view counts can have on video production. As they highlight 'feedback interactions' are crucial to motivating users to create new content. This could either be a new video or increasing circulation of a video with in the community. Just recently there has been a lot of focus on adolescent users of you tube in the media (3 high school girls suspended due to a video they uploaded to youTube). It is no wonder that the participatory nature, or non- participatory (viewing but not creating or commenting) nature of youTube appeals so much to a youth culture. YouTube simply provides a non-confrontation space where youth can determine their own level of participation enabling it to be used as tools for knowledge production and Higher Education. However as the ability for videos to go viral increases and the frontiers of social media expand, I worry the 'empowerment' of youthTubers isn't being backed up by public broadcasting education and as with all higher education, there needs to be a basic level of knowledge already in place and a set of standards.

Youtube acts as a place that enables users to access media, create, connect, collaborate and share between other Youtube users. This article explores how Youtube provides community space through technology that facilitates music creativity by the users. The article is divided by two sections; firstly, the relationship of art and technology will be examined and reflected on appropriate literatures, the other section will analyse a case study of an amateur musician who consumes music and ideas, recreates and shares back this 'art' work. Through Youtube, masses are able to view and listen digitalised artwork and the technological revolution enable users to play, reconstruct and share innovative ideas. Thus this action has created democratisation of art where previously artworks were constrained by institutions and now the artwork politic has become bias. The case study included in this article covers many aspect on how a user utilise Youtube to collaborate online. Firstly, Youtube as a medium has the ability to connect communities of users with similar interest. Secondly, Youtube enables users to combine talents and create a piece of work even though the creators live in different geographical area. Thirdly, difficulties that affecting the production were discussed: time differences constrain, physical distance between creators, file size, different Internet access and privacy of creators. The factors mentioned is similar to the three properties of digital networks explained by Sassen (2002), which are: decentralized access, simultaneity and interconnectivity. Youtube enable the producers to promote themselves by distributing their creation to the crowd. The audience has become the 'jury' to give feedback on how they perceive the work and may become producer recreating new original work and supplementing the existing one. This made the communication and ideas to circulate within the online community.

Resource: Cayari, C. (2011) "The YouTube Effect: How YouTube has Provided New Ways to Consume, Create, and Share Music." International journal of education and the arts, July 2011, 12(6). Available online at http://www.ijea.org/v12n6/ Additional reference: Sassen, S. (2002), 'Towards a Sociology of Information Technology', Current Sociology, May, 50(3): 365-388 available online at http://transnationalism.uchicago.edu/infotech.pdf

Ball, P. (2007, February 27). The more, the wikier. Nature: International weekly journal of Science. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com The More, The Wikier is an article published on Nature: International Weekly Journal of Science, which explores the secret behind the quality of Wikipedia entries when anyone, anywhere has the ability to write and edit content. The article looks at three groups of researchers who "claim to have untangled the process by which many Wikipedia entries achieve their impressive accuracy". Wikipedia is an organisation in which users collaborate their knowledge to create an encyclopedia of information. "The percentage of edits made by the Wikipedia 'élite' of administrators" is steadily declining and "Wikipedia is now dominated by users who are much more numerous than the elite but individually less active." "The wisdom of the crowds" principle suggests that the combined knowledge of a large and diverse group is superior to the knowledge of a few experts. Ball explains that content accuracy and quality of Wikipedia articles is related to a high number of edits by a large number of users. For example, articles that deal with very topical issues receive a higher level of attention from a large and diverse audience and therefore are of higher quality than articles that are not as topical and thus do not attract the same attention. The three research groups referenced in the article are: Dennis Wilkinson and Bernardo Huberman of Hewlett Packard's research laboratories who studied how a high number of edits by a large number of users create the 'best' Wikipedia articles, Aniket Kittur of the University of California, and co-workers who explored how the Wiki community has evolved from a small governing group to a democracy, and Ofer Arazy and colleagues at the University of Alberta who discuss the importance of this diversification of Wikipedia contributors to the overall success of its articles.

This article takes a look at the crowd sourcing idea that Wikipedia thrives on. 'Lots of edits by lots of people'. Crowd sourcing makes use of the knowledge of crowds. The more people you have contributing information to an article the more information the article will contain. This is however affected when fewer people begin to contribute to the writing and collaboration process. A person contributing to the Wikipedia page may only be making a change as small as a simple grammatical correction but it means quite a lot to the overall aesthetic of the page. People are far less likely to believe the information presented by an article filled with errors and punctuation problems. It might seem like a small issue but this is how many hands make light work. Wikipedia's reliability comes from its ability to be edited by many people with small alterations. It is strange however that in your other article regarding Wikipedia being its own worst enemy you have points made there of why Wikipedia is leaning towards extinction. These mainly are concerned with the decreasing number of people editing. So is Wikipedia going to stay strong or will it slowly become just another encyclopedia?

Ball's article highlights the successful nature of Wikipedia's open source network and how quality of information is achieved. He suggests that the 'secret' to Wikipedia's credibility is the increasing number of contributors and the 'diversification' it brings to the platform through collective knowledge (Ball, 2007). I can relate Ball's article to Surowiecki's (2004) article Wisdom of the Crowds because it reinforces the notion that people must be unrelated, independent, and have diversity of mind from one another to form good opinions. The architecture of the collaborative platform Wikipedia harnesses the 'power of the crowds' in such a way that encourages diverse participation, as opposed to a group-think scenario, and thus produces 'wisdom' through quality information (Surowiecki, 2004, p5). Ball observes that Wikipedia's structure allows for an above average quality of information on more topical articles. This occurs because popular topics create more traffic, which in turn enables more contributors to edit an article and therefore creating more 'diverse' and 'reliable' information (Ball, 2007). This reinforces the quality of an article through diversification and mass collaboration. This notion of 'quality' can be applied to the Kony 2012 campaign page on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kony_2012), which has been edited over 500 times and has been viewed 1,227,982 times since 6 March 2012, when the Kony 2012 campaign was first launched (Wikipedia Article Page Statistics, 2012). However, it is at this point that the similarities between Ball and Surowiecki cease. According to Ball, the Kony 2012 Wikipedia article is a prime example of a topical issue. The statistics reinforce his observations about Wikipedia's crowds and how they are able to create credible and reliable information due to diversification brought into the article by 1,227,98