The main difference between a wiki and a blog is their purpose. A wiki is a central source of information for a particular subject, which its contents are controlled by contributors. This content "should" be objective, thus only facts should be contributed. A blog is a post where a user like myself at this particular time decides to share their opinions or beliefs about a particular subject such as this one. The key words that distinguish a wiki and a blog are fact and opinion, a wiki should provide facts and a blog is the contributors opinion.
The problem with wikis is in their nature itself. Since a wiki is content provided by contributors, the information may be inaccurate, whether it was the intent or a mistake made by the contributor to provide such content. Therefore like John D. Sutter's "Wikipedia: No Longer the Wild Wild West" article discusses, the assigning of editors to verify if the information added to Wikipedia is accurate or not was an inevitable step in the websites evolution. Some argue that the website is derailing from it's roots of user contributed content without regulation, but if editors were not assigned to the content, the website would have completely derailed from it's true roots: to provide "accurate" user contributed information. Since there is so much controversy on the legitimacy of wikis and content used as a source for scholarly research will result in an epic F-, wikis should be used for subjective debates on previously contributed objective content. Perhaps, wikis should abandon to strive so much for legitimacy since ultimately it's user based content and should be a completely open platform for the users themselves.
Blogs on the other hand are much simpler. Like Melissa Gerry's "Celebrity Blogs: The Impact of New Media" states, blogs are not regulated or edited by anybody. The author of the blog can say whatever they want without being punished. The fact that blogs are based on mostly formulated opinions makes it easier for collaboration to happen based around the blogs. For example, when I finish writing this blog, I may get comments on people's opinion about my blog. The comments may be negative or positive, it doesn't matter, the fact that this blog enticed others to take their time to respond proves how blogs are a tool of collaboration. Comments create a chain effect because I may respond depending on how strongly I feel about my opinion. Ultimately, blogs create collaboration through the sharing of information in a subjective way, which entices others to respond to share their opinions. We all gain new perspectives from a certain piece of information.
The importance of convergence is illustrated in both wikis and blogs. The fact that people are willing to take their time to contribute information to a wiki or to post comments on a blog illustrates that people are not only converging, but wanting and caring to do so through the use of these new media platforms. Blogs and wikis are bringing people from all over the world to the same place, almost like if I and all of the people writing a blog about this topic were sitting in a table together, discussing and contributing. There is no doubt that "new media" converges people from all over, but the fact that it does it so efficiently and seamlessly is unprecedented in human history.
The problem with wikis is in their nature itself. Since a wiki is content provided by contributors, the information may be inaccurate, whether it was the intent or a mistake made by the contributor to provide such content. Therefore like John D. Sutter's "Wikipedia: No Longer the Wild Wild West" article discusses, the assigning of editors to verify if the information added to Wikipedia is accurate or not was an inevitable step in the websites evolution. Some argue that the website is derailing from it's roots of user contributed content without regulation, but if editors were not assigned to the content, the website would have completely derailed from it's true roots: to provide "accurate" user contributed information. Since there is so much controversy on the legitimacy of wikis and content used as a source for scholarly research will result in an epic F-, wikis should be used for subjective debates on previously contributed objective content. Perhaps, wikis should abandon to strive so much for legitimacy since ultimately it's user based content and should be a completely open platform for the users themselves.
Blogs on the other hand are much simpler. Like Melissa Gerry's "Celebrity Blogs: The Impact of New Media" states, blogs are not regulated or edited by anybody. The author of the blog can say whatever they want without being punished. The fact that blogs are based on mostly formulated opinions makes it easier for collaboration to happen based around the blogs. For example, when I finish writing this blog, I may get comments on people's opinion about my blog. The comments may be negative or positive, it doesn't matter, the fact that this blog enticed others to take their time to respond proves how blogs are a tool of collaboration. Comments create a chain effect because I may respond depending on how strongly I feel about my opinion. Ultimately, blogs create collaboration through the sharing of information in a subjective way, which entices others to respond to share their opinions. We all gain new perspectives from a certain piece of information.
The importance of convergence is illustrated in both wikis and blogs. The fact that people are willing to take their time to contribute information to a wiki or to post comments on a blog illustrates that people are not only converging, but wanting and caring to do so through the use of these new media platforms. Blogs and wikis are bringing people from all over the world to the same place, almost like if I and all of the people writing a blog about this topic were sitting in a table together, discussing and contributing. There is no doubt that "new media" converges people from all over, but the fact that it does it so efficiently and seamlessly is unprecedented in human history.
No comments:
Post a Comment