Mediaboss Marketing

(THE CONVERSATION) What comes to mind when you think of Wikipedia?

Maybe you think of clicking link after link to learn about a topic, followed by another topic and then another. Or maybe youve heard a teacher or librarian tell you that what you read on Wikipedia isnt reliable.

Asresearchandinstruction librarians, we know people have concerns about using Wikipedia in academic work. And yet, in interacting with undergraduate and graduate students doing various kinds of research, we also see how Wikipedia can be an important source for background information, topic development and locating further information.

What exactly is Wikipedia?

Wikipedia, whichlaunched in 2001is a free online encyclopedia run by the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation and written collaboratively by its users.

There are 10 rulesandfive pillarsfor contributing to the site. The five pillars establish Wikipedia as a free online encyclopedia, with articles that are accurate and cite reliable sources, and editors called Wikipedians who avoid bias and treat one another with respect.

Policies and guidelinesbuild upon the five pillars by establishing best practices for writing and editing on Wikipedia. Common issues that go against the guidelines, for example, includepaid editingandvandalism, which refers to editing an article in an intentionally malicious, offensive or libelous way.

Here are what we see as the main pros and cons to college students using Wikipedia as a source of information in their research and assignments, though anyone can consider these tips when using Wikipedia.

Wikipedias strengths

1. Basic information on virtually any topic

In addition to being free and readily available, Wikipedias standardizedarticle layoutand hyperlinks to other articles enable readers to quickly track down the basics on their topic the who, what, when, where and why.

In our experience, many students come to the library with a chosen topic for example, voting rights during Reconstruction but little knowledge about it. Before searching for the scholarly articles and books typically needed to complete their assignment, students benefit from knowing keywords and concepts related to their topic. This ensures they can try a variety of words and phrases in the catalog and databases as part of their search strategy.

2. Notes and references encourage readers to go deeper

TheWiki rabbit holeis a real browsing behavior of endlessly hopping from topic to topic, which is a testament to the sites easy navigation. Students can find valuable information such as important scholars on the topic by scrolling to the Notes and References sections of the Wikipedia page. Here they can find out who authored the various sources used in the article, as well as the citation information needed to locate additional books and articles.

3. Students can be editors

Students can write content, share information and properly cite scholarly sources on Wikipedia by becoming an editor. Quick-acting editors can become the first to add changes to an articleas events unfold. Those of us with access to scholarly sources, both in print and online through libraries,can expand Wikipedias contentby sharing information that might otherwise be behind a paywall.

Wikipedia edit-a-thonsare events at which people gather to edit articles on topics of interest or that might otherwise be ignored. American universities have hosted edit-a-thons onBlack artists,womens historyanddiverse artists in Appalachia.

Someprofessors assign Wikipedia editingas an alternative to the traditional research paper. This practice engages students in digital literacy and teaches themhow societal knowledge is constructed and shared.

Wikipedias drawbacks

1. Systemic and gender bias

The crowdsourced nature of Wikipedia can lead to the exclusion of some voices and topics. Although anyone can edit, not everyone does.

On the issue ofgender bias, Wikipedia acknowledges that most contributors are male, few biographies are about women, and topics of interest to women receive less coverage. This dynamic can be observed in other areas of underrepresentation, especially race and ethnicity. Nearly90% of U.S. Wikipedia editors identify as white, which leads to missing topics, perspectives and sources.

2. Citation requirements can exclude important sources

Wikipedia requires that information included in an article waspublished by a reliable source. While this is often an important element to confirm something is true or correct, it can be limiting for topics that have not received coverage in newspapers or scholarly journals. For some topics, such as Indigenous peoples of Canada, anoral historymay be an important source, but it could not be cited in a Wikipedia article.

3. Not all cited sources are open-access

Some sources may be behind paywalls, and since citationsdrive traffic and revenue, academic publishers have a vested interest in their publications being cited, whether or not they are freely available. However, college students can use their schools library to get full text access to the sources they discover in Wikipedia articles.

4. Articles change frequently

While timely updates are an advantage of Wikipedia, the impermanence of articles can make them difficult to rely on for information. Students can keep track of the date they find a piece of information on Wikipedia as it might not be the same when they return. The Talk page of a Wikipedia entry provides a discussion of changes to the article, and theInternet Archive Wayback Machinecan be used to view previous versions.

See the original post here:
Is Wikipedia a good source? 2 college librarians explain when to use the online encyclopedia and when to avoid it - KRQE News 13

LOS ANGELES Following the meteoric rise of new streamer Logan Reynolds, better known by his Twitch username Mav3r1ckPlayz, Wikipedia editors added a blank controversy section to the gamers information page, just in case.

These things are just inevitable; might as well save some time now, said Wikipedia editor Bryan Jobs. He hasnt done anything at all wrong yet, but its only a matter of time. I know youre probably thinking but this streamer just plays Mario games with his friends, how could he possibly do something insanely problematic? Give it a week. You can only stay at the top for so long until you randomly start spiraling on camera about how the white race is under attack, or women shouldnt be allowed in politics, or whatever miscellaneous prejudice that hell save for when hes broadcasting in front of thousands of people. When that happens, Ill be there. Ready to update the Wiki.

The streamer claimed he understood why the foreboding dropdown menu was necessary.

I havent done anything wrong yet, but I think its best for the sake of Wikipedia to just have the gun locked and loaded for when I mean if I do, Reynolds said on a livestream Tuesday. I want all my fans to be up to date the moment I go on a Twitter tirade about some oppressed minority that did nothing to provoke me, so its smart to have Wikipedia be proactive instead of reactive.

Fellow streamers hoped that Reynolds would keep them in the loop of his upcoming scandals as well.

In the Twitch community, its common courtesy to give your constituents a couple days notice before your controversies leak so we can get our reaction videos ready, said Twitch partner Eric Steadly. When I knew my grooming allegations were going to come to light, I gave a bunch of my friends a 24 hour heads up so that they could start photoshopping their thumbnails and preparing their Notes App statements for social media. Its just a simple modicum of respect among horrible, controversial people.

At press time, sources reported that Wikipedia had been ominously updated to include a sex scandal from December 2024 that had not even occurred yet.

Go here to see the original:
New Streamer's Wikipedia Page Has Empty Controversy Section Just In Case - Hard Drive

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. In celebration of Womens History Month, Penn State University Libraries will host a virtual monthlong Wikipedia editathon focusing on Native American women activists and environmentalists from March 27 through April 18.

Wikipedia editathons are organized events held with the intention of increasing representation on Wikipedia of identified underrepresented groups and providing basic training to new editors.First-time Wikipedia editors are welcome to join the virtual event regardless of level of technology knowledge or experience. Experienced editors will be on hand to answer questions and suggest articles to edit and references to use.

Links to all event programs, including those listed below, will be available on the Penn State Libraries Wikipedia Editathon Dashboard. Participants can access the dashboard and contribute to the selected pages anytime throughout the period.

For information about getting started with a Wikipedia account, visit theWikipedia meetup pagefor the event. For information about this event or accommodations, contact Marty Coyle, music and AV cataloger, at mcc5012@psu.edu, or Ana Enriquez, scholarly communications outreach librarian, at aee32@psu.edu.

Go here to read the rest:
Libraries to host virtual Wikipedia editathon focusing on Native ... - Pennsylvania State University

Look, you're busy people, it's Friday, you're already thinking about logging off for the daywe won't bury the lede here. When we chatted with You're Wrong About host Sarah Marshall earlier this week ahead of her show at the Cedar Cultural Center on Saturday, she hit us with a shocking local angle regarding her exceedingly popular podcast.

"The show was like, born in Minnesota, because the first ever episode I recorded was in my friends Mike and Sally's house in Minneapolis," she says. In fact, Marshall adds, she recorded a number of the early episodes while visiting another friend in Winona. "It's got Minnesota all over it."

"It's not common knowledge," she chuckles. "People don't ask very often."

If you're not sure why that surprise bit of intel might be a big deal to this reporter, it's becauseYou're Wrong About is among the most-listened-to podcasts in the U.S. The biweekly show, which takes a look at things that history has gotten wrong, was co-created by Marshall and journalist Michael Hobbes in 2018, when Hobbes first reached out to her about a new idea.

"At the time, I think the working title was I Misremember the '90s," Marshall says. She had one note: Could they open it up to all periods of history?

Back then, Marshall was freelancing, and struggling to place stories about these very thingslike, what if she re-examined the case of Amy Fisher, for example? "The response I got typically was like, 'No! There's nothing there! No one cares! No one wants to hear you scold the media about how it handled Amy Fisher,'" she says.

The result was that Marshall had a backlog of unplaceable stories, an "attic-worth of material" that dovetailed wonderfully with the podcast's premise.

You're Wrong About has proven all those assigning editors from Marshall's past wrong; it turns out people do want to hear someone scoldwith humor and warmtha media and a public that has historically misunderstood and misremembered everyone from Courtney Love to Kitty Genovese to Marie Antoinette.

"Most people I know love Wikipedia deep dives, but there's only so many you can go on," Marshall says. The experience of listening to You're Wrong About is like someone cracked a few beers, booted up their MacBook, and hopped down that Wiki rabbit hole for you.

Many of its subjects are women who've been wronged, like Terri Schiavo and Monica Lewinsky. (And yes: There is an Amy Fisher episode.) "Especially growing up in the '90s, your media diet, you look back on it later and you're like, 'What were we doing?'" But it's not always figures from history; You're Wrong About digs into cultural phenomena, from the Satanic Panic to the rise of email ("two equally scary things," Marshall quips), and events from The Jonestown Massacre to The Wardrobe Malfunction.

Since co-host Michael Hobbes departed the show in 2021, Marshall has been bringing on guests, working with people she knows already and those she admires from afar. She's recorded a few popular episodes with the writer and adventurer Blair Braverman (also some of my personal favorites), including a recent look at the life of Chris McCandless, the subject of Jon Krakauer's Into The Wild.

One frequent collaborator is Jamie Loftus, the weirdo podcasting genius behind shows including Lolita Podcast, Aack Cast, and Ghost Church, who joined Marshall during her first tour dates last year and returns for this tour.

"I love working with Jamie specifically," Marshall says. "I think she's equally talented as a podcaster, as a live performer, as a comedian, as somebody who is doing the best, weirdest, smartest performance art that's happening right now."

Saturday's live show will combine a few topics: Marshall is presenting to Loftus on the subject of the Reagans (her current obsession), and Loftus plans to present on Bonnie and Clyde. There'll also be some show-stopper elements thrown in there... not to set expectations too high, but during their live shows last fall, Loftus's talk on competitive hot-dog eating culminated in a hot-dog eating contest between the two. The loser got mustard poured on them; the "winner" got ketchup.

Saturday's show is currently sold out, though Marshall imagines a limited number of will-call tickets will be released day-of; keep an eye on the Cedar's social channels for updates.

Marshall sees the live shows as an extension of the podcast itself, "taking the spirit of the show and make it into theater in some way." From the beginning, You're Wrong About has been conversational, and casual, and that's part of its successit's just a (deeply researched) chat between two (very smart, very funny) people where the audience gets to listen in.

"The sound of a human voice does something... reading even the most wonderful sentences on a page doesn't have the same effect, at least for me," Marshall says. (But don't let that stop you from finishing this story!) "There's something about the intimacy of it, the feeling of someone speaking directly to you, feeling like they're inside your head, that can allow you to feel comforted by the presence of this other human being."

But, most importantly, let's make a point of setting our own record straight: Marshall recorded You're Wrong About's first episode here. It's basically a Minnesota original. She gets it.

"I'm from Oregon," she says, "and I feel like it's a similar vibe, where you can tell me the boringestlike, I learned that Linus Pauling was from Oregon, and ever since I've been like, 'I love Linus Pauling!'"

An Evening With You're Wrong AboutSaturday, March 25 at Cedar Cultural Center416 Cedar Ave. S., MinneapolisDoors: 7 p.m. / Show: 8 p.m.All ages

See the rest here:
Sarah Marshall of 'You're Wrong About' on Wikipedia Deep Dives ... - Racket

The annals of the internet are replete with tales of warning, ranging from apocalyptic scenarios that never materialised - such as the Y2K bug - to groundbreaking technological advancements that were once widely celebrated, but have now become insignificant elements in the fabric of the world's digital landscape.

Joe Baguley, VP and CTO, VMware EMEA | image supplied

The nature of technology and its cycle of self-perpetuating betterment means that there will always be the next big thing. In this regard, step forward ChatGPT and its subsequent updates such as GPT4.

Since the tail end of 2022, ChatGPT has been that thing. The white knight to solve the ills of modern society. Depending on which news source you read, it will improve; how we study, write, research, code, work, create and evolve in the workplace. There is more, of course, because the potential use cases are endless, but there are also grounds to sound the klaxon of caution.

For a start, weve been here before. People of a certain age will recall the fanfare to which Wikipedia arrived. That too was going to revolutionise how we learn and research. That too was going to change the world. And did it? Im afraid not quite.

What happened is what is almost certain to happen to ChatGPT and the innovations that follow after it. That it evolved to become a tool, albeit an incredibly useful one. A tool in the box that helps our day-to-day lives alongside the other incredible tools that have been developed in recent years, like Alexa or next-day delivery. On its own, will it change how we operate? Almost certainly. Will it change the world? Almost certainly not. Like Wikipedia, we will grow to learn its limits.

Perhaps the key question is, where and how far will it catapult society? The excitement around ChatGPT stems from what it is, not necessarily what it does. By consumerising an artificial intelligence (AI) product into something everyone can use it has opened our eyes to the realities of an AI-infused world.

The fact is, that this is happening already in sectors such as healthcare (for early detection, image scanning and analysis and predictive care to name a few examples) and manufacturing (for instance, to increase production capabilities and cut emissions) but those applications are limited only to a select few, hence the massive disparity in reaction.

The reality is, we are already in an AI-infused world of which ChatGPT is simply the next chapter and it wont be the last. It is, however, a very clear signpost as to where we go from here. The Genie is out of the bottle as far as the positive impacts AI can have but beyond the excitement and appetite to use it as a digital travelator to get to the next point more quickly, society needs to harness it appropriately.

This means starting at an education-level. Were already seeing reports of it being used in exams. In a recent test, it passed law exams in four courses at the University of Minnesota and another exam at University of Pennsylvanias Wharton School of Business, according to this story on CNN. Unsurprisingly, were also seeing tools being developed to detect and prevent its usage. This creates a developmental cat and mouse whereby students will want to use it both because they cant, and because they shouldnt.

But this sends out a wrong message and arguably fuels the fire of scepticism around AI. Knowing that theyre here to stay, we should accept ChatGPT and other AI tools into education and encourage people on how to best engage with them. Essentially, to use every tool in the box to get the job done better and quicker because this is the world of work they will walk into.

The same message applies to businesses. It is far too linear to suggest that these types of AI advances alone will kill job X or Y while that, in and of itself, isn't the end of the chain anyway. Just because ChatGPT can create job adverts, brand copy or legal letters does not mean businesses ought to dismiss their HR, marketing and legal teams. Far from it.

These teams are more vital than ever because their years of experience, diverse backgrounds, soft human skills and unique personalities are not only what is required to get a job done today, theyre the foundation of society tomorrow.

The cleverest businesses and the ones who will come out on top in the end will be the ones who get to grips with these types of innovation. To learn them, incorporate them into day-to-day operations and evolve the skills of their teams accordingly and in lockstep with any new development. Microsofts new 365 Copilot is just another example of such tech rapidly being integrated into existing business tools.

The leaders will be the companies that embrace AI to do something better than they are doing today without jettisoning the people and skills required to adapt to our ever-changing world.

Another way to look at it is that early machine code developers didnt disappear because we invented compilers - what in fact happened was that more and more people could access the power of computing as coding became progressively easier and easier with each generation; with generative AI such as GPT4 now generating code and creating websites from sketches it will just enable even more people to engage and create.

We will, of course, reach a point where enough is enough as far as AI is concerned. Perhaps in years to come well reach that moment and identify this period as the start of that journey, but it is a long way from now. What it will look like is an age-old question. A moral and societal issue far too deep to cover here, though Professor Stuart Russell did so expertly in his 2021 Reith Lectures.

All we have now is a new technology, no more, no less. ChatGPT is a computer system taking big steps forward in communication and generation, and that is an amazing advancement, but using this tool and combining it with other tools alongside the scientific method and human intelligence is where the real excitement is. In short order we are already discovering its flaws and limits.

Thinking critically about combinations and application is how and where we can realise the potential of AI to change lives for the better. Once again we should look at how technology augments humans and advances us all. In order to do that, we first have to understand limitations and that were always in the middle of history, never the end.

Link:
ChatGPT and GPT4: a fresh starting point for society or Wikipedia 2.0? - Bizcommunity.com