So, Thursday in class we watched a debate about Wikipedia. The three people in the debate where the founder of wikipedia - Jimmy Wales, a blogger/author against wikipedia - Andrew Keen (or at least the way it operates) and the mediator.
I thought the mediator did a very good job of allowing the two debaters to speak freely and not interrupting too much, just enough to keep the conversation flowing. I also thought the debaters did a nice job of being friendly and respectful of each other so it was just a big smeer campaign.
That being said, I am pretty confident if I was in that debate defending Wikipedia, I would slapped Andrew Keen about 5 minutes in and then walked away. It was extremely frustrating just to watch him sit there and say the same thing over and over, even after Jimmy Wales had addressed it and rendered it irrelevant. It was like Andrew had prepared two arguments for the debates - 1) contributors should be paid, and 2) APPARENTLY if information on some articles is longer than information on other articles, all hell breaks loose and the world as we know it comes to an end.
He completely failed to grasp the concept that it is not print media and the length is not limited by paper. Articles can be as long as they want, so why not just let it be - the more information the better right?
It was an interesting debate, but I agree Andrew Keen should have been slapped. His points, I feel, were not things to be concerned about. My impression was that he was trying to find something to complain about. Who cares if the contributing authors to Wikipedia do not get paid. Giving the nature of Wikipedia, anyone can contribute. I doubt that contributing to Wikipedia is someone's full-time job. As far as the length of the articles, I am glad to get as much information as I can on a subject. To me, as the saying goes..."The more the merrier".
ReplyDeletehahah I found Andrew Keen very frustrating also! Jimmy Wales was very graceful in the way that he handled it though, I was very impressed! I think I also would have done the fight and flight method. Slap and walk away.
ReplyDeleteThe thing I found most interesting about the debate was Wales' insertion that it is a method for furthering the expansion of human knowledge worldwide. I would be interested in knowing what kind of social contributions (monetary, in-kind, etc) they make. There is really no argument that Wikipedia does not advance the human knowledge, because we ALL use it. Maybe not for academic research, but for learning common knowledge and stuff of that sort.
I completely agree with you. I know there are plenty of people who find fault with wikipedia, but I don't think Andrew Keen made very good points about its downfalls. Jimmy Wales had a response for everything he said, and made complete sense. Keen just kept repeating the same thing over and over said in a slightly different way, and it just made him seem like he either wasn't prepared, or wasn't listening.
ReplyDeleteI use wikipedia often, and think it is a very good resource. However, you have to know how to use it wisely, and be careful about the information as it may not always be correct. But to say that it is leading to the fall of the intellectual class because no one gets paid for the information they provide, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Like Wales pointed out, no one asks for monetary payback, so I don't know why Keen is so worried about it.
I also like how the mediator did such a good job of keeping the debate flowing smoothly. He was able to question the debators at just the right times.
ReplyDeleteBeing a mediator would also be very difficult because of being non bias about the subject. He must have his own personal opinion on the topic and could easily direct his questions in his favor. He was very objective and questioned both men the same.
I agree with Aaron, I do not believe that Andrew Keen had a very good arguement. I felt as though he wasn't really prepared for the debate and if he was the comments he made didn't convince me of anything. I think wikipedia is a great researching tool, and everyone should know how to use it to expand their knowledge.
ReplyDeleteYes, i agree when it comes to not having more than a couple complaints about Wikipedia. Some arguments such as giving credit to the writer did make complete sense and should be taken into consideration. He did lose some argument credibility though when he argued that length of a topic is directly related to the importance..... that goes against everything we've been told by teachers in school.
ReplyDelete