I think that Schiff wrote this article on the premises of two main points. Basically that Wikipedia started out as a cultural experiment of sorts. The results coming in strongly in favor of wikipedia, and what it has to offer. Our generation sees wikipedia as a source of information that is trustworthy. But what Schiff tried to express in this article is how shaky wikipedia can be. This being the other main point of the article. The author tried to highlight the fact that wikipedia is written by the people, for the people, and to exercise caution when deciding whether or not the information is believable or just plain ridiculous.
An important part of credible writing is selecting good supporting evidence. Select a passage from this article that illustrates the effective use of supporting detail. Explain why you think it is particularly effective.
"Is Wikipedia accurate? Last year, Nature published a survey comparing forty-two entries on scientific topics on Wikipedia with their counterparts in Encyclopædia Britannica. According to the survey, Wikipedia had four errors for every three of Britannica’s, a result that, oddly, was hailed as a triumph for the upstart. Such exercises in nitpicking are relatively meaningless, as no reference work is infallible. Britannica issued a public statement refuting the survey’s findings, and took out a half-page advertisement in the Times, which said, in part, “Britannica has never claimed to be error-free. We have a reputation not for unattainable perfection but for strong scholarship, sound judgment, and disciplined editorial review.” Later, Jorge Cauz, Britannica’s president, told me in an e-mail that if Wikipedia continued without some kind of editorial oversight it would “decline into a hulking mediocre mass of uneven, unreliable, and, many times, unreadable articles.” Wales has said that he would consider Britannica a competitor, “except that I think they will be crushed out of existence within five years.” "
I think that this section very effectively illustrates the use of effective detail. The beginning of the paragraph starts out with a question, and then the rest of the paragraph answers it. The author uses statistics and quotations for emphasis, as well as, enriching the article with depictions.
Throughout the article, the author compares Wikipedia to the Encyclopedia Britannica, but not specifically on design. How would you compare the two encyclopedias from a design perspective?
Well to be perfectly honest, although wikipedia was proven to have 4 errors to Britannia's 3, I think that wikipedia is more appealing to consumers. I think the fact it costs nothing to use wikipedia makes it appeal to more people. Although the encyclopedias give you a sense of reflective design post-purchase, wikipedia is accessible to anyone, anywhere via internet. For a society who is always on the go, wikipedia is much more cohesive with the lifestyle of the majority of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment