Auf ein Miniaturbild klicken, um zu Google Books zu gelangen.
|
Lädt ... The World and Wikipedia: How we are editing realityvon Andrew Dalby
   Keine Keine aktuelle Diskussion zu diesem Buch.  agatheldy | May 15, 2013 | 
 On the whole, The World and Wikipedia covers much of the same ground as The Wikipedia Revolution, but while Lih is systematic and takes the role of historian and journalist, Dalby is more impressionistic and acts more in the vein of the anthropologist and cultural critic. The result is another worthy addition to the literature on Wikipedia. Le livre ne se veut certainement pas un ouvrage de fond ou un essai universitaire sur ce qu’est l’encyclopédie libre. Il est certes rédigé avec grand sérieux, cite ses sources et ses références, mais tout est fait pour que sa lecture soit aisée et agréable. Œuvre d’un bibliothécaire, il apporte ce qui manque à beaucoup de professionnels de l’information : une connaissance de l’intérieur de Wikipédia, afin d’en comprendre les mécanismes et les ressorts. World admirably attempts to craft a narrative that is not weighed down by the site’s rules with the recognition that they can’t be ignored. However, the sweet spot of writing Wikipedia narrative to make it interesting for non-Wikipedians remains elusive. It may be an impossible task.
"Take any article on Wikipedia. Who wrote it? Where did it come from? Now take a closer look at those unconvincing, badly written sentences in the middle. Why did someone add them? How long will it be before someone else deletes them? And how many people will have read them before they are removed?
Five years ago such questions didn't matter; Wikipedia was one source among many, and no one took it very seriously. Two years ago they hardly mattered, because the newspapers said Wikipedia couldn't be trusted, and there was always a more 'reliable' source to check later.
But suddenly, these questions really do matter. With all its nonsense, its illiteracy and its unreliability, Wikipedia is currently the eighth most visited site on the web. Whatever they say, most people rely on it most of the time. Those other sources won't be around much longer, and Wikipedia will be the best there is. But is it good enough to rule the world of knowledge? And how big will it be ten years from now?"--pub. desc. Keine Bibliotheksbeschreibungen gefunden. |
Aktuelle DiskussionenKeineBeliebte Umschlagbilder 
 Google Books — Lädt ...GenresMelvil Decimal System (DDC)030.285Information Dictionaries and Encyclopedias General Encyclopedias MiscellanyKlassifikation der Library of Congress [LCC] (USA)BewertungDurchschnitt: (4)
Bist das du?Werde ein LibraryThing-Autor. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1
C'est ce que se demande cet ouvrage qui émet des hypothèses sur le futur de l'encyclopédie en ligne.
Un livre qui présente bien les dessous de Wikipédia pour amener le lecteur à réfléchir à deux fois avant de croire aux informations mises en ligne.
Pour autant, il ne rejette pas la faute que sur Wikipédia, car nous avons tous une part de responsabilité.