Anna Cunningham is currently undertaking a double degree in Media Communications and Law at the Queensland University of Technology. She is currently in her second year of study and hopes to eventually become involved in Journalism or Media Law.
Anna Cunningham 13:35, 30 Jul 2005 (EST) Anna Cunningham
this uses the old referencing system..... see email
Bedell, D. 2004. 'New Online Encyclopedia Threatens to Blow Old-School Rivals Out of Water.' Knight Ridder Tribune Business News, Aug 19, 10.
This article advocates and supports the Wikipedia as an objective and reliable source. It details the aims of the Wiki Foundation and their motivations for starting the encyclopedia. It examines the philosophies behind the ‘open source’ movement who aim to distribute information, content and technology to the global community free from commercial and private control. It examines, in detail, the “no point of view�? policy that operates within the Wikipedia to ensure the encyclopedia remains objective. The author, Doug Bedell, also outlines the new Wiki project, Wikibooks, who aim to publish free textbooks for the public domain under free development licenses. It also introduced a term describing people who are addicted to contributing to the Wikipedia: ‘Wikipediaholics’. This is a reliable source, as a business focused newspaper, however it does assume that readers have prior knowledge of the Wikipedia, ‘open source’ publishing and copyright issues. Doug Bedell is mostly noted for his publications on financial investment, but is a reliable source as a well known ‘technology and business’ columnist and author.
Ciffolilli, A. 2003. ‘Phantom Authority, Self-Selective Recruitment and Retention of Members in Virtual Communities: The Case of Wikipedia.’ First Monday: Peer Reviewed Journal on the Net. 8 (12): http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_12/ciffolilli/ (accessed August 2, 2005)
This online essay addresses the motivations and philosophies behind the ‘open source’ movement and cites the Wikipedia as an example of a successful ‘open source’ publication. The piece describes ‘open source’ communities as a meeting place for “like minds�? who can creatively construct content for a public and interactive audience. It also emphasizes the fact the Wikipedia is free of advertising and commercial interest and is dependent on volunteers and donations. The essay also illustrates the distributed authority which operates within the Wikipedia as many users are recruited as moderators and ‘usership’ is not exclusive or restrictive. Although this is a well researched essay, the Peer Reviewed Journal, as a free and online journal would, seemingly, be biased towards similar publications such as the Wikipedia. The author, Andrea Ciffolilli, is a PhD student based in Italy who has focused his research on ICT’s and the social and economic implication of developing technology.
Goldsborough, R. 2005. ‘An Encyclopedia of the People, by the People, for the People.’ Black Issues in Higher Education. 22 (9): 40.
This article, “An Encyclopedia of the people, by the People, for the People,�? presents a negative and pessimistic view of the Wikipedia due to the lack of expertise and reliability of its authors. It acknowledges the growing popularity of the Wikipedia, as the second most visited site on the web, and the growing controversy surrounding the reliability of this ‘open source’ encyclopedia. The piece criticizes the Wikipedia as its authors are not held accountable for their work as there is no selective process for active contributors. It also presents the view that the Wikipedia operates under a ‘Lord of the Flies’ system whereas the loudest voice is heard over the most authoritative. This article suggests that a reader must beware of the Wikipedia as its audience must check their facts and remain cautious about using the encyclopedia as an academic authority. This is a reliable source, as an academic journal, however it deals only with the academic integrity of the Wikipedia and not the motivations and social benefits of an ‘open source’ encyclopedia. The author, Reid Goldsborough, is an IT columnist and author who specializes in Blogs and internet publishing.
Kent, P. 2005 ‘Open Source Encyclopedia? Users Maintain Wikipedia.’ Boulder County Business Report. Feb 18 -24, 43.
This source compares the Encyclopedia Britannica to the Wikipedia and details the major differences between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ types of publishing. The encyclopedia Britannica uses qualified editors and writers and charges users for its services. On the other hand, the Wikipedia is written by web users and is fast becoming the world’s largest encyclopedia, growing by 700 articles a day. The article cites relevancy as the major difference between the two encyclopedias as the Britannica outdates quickly whist the Wikipedia is constantly updated. The piece also details the revision process for new articles added to the Wikipedia and the review process used to resolve disputes between contributors. The author, Peter Kent, is a reliable source as the author of popular computer and internet books and presents a favourable view of the Wikipedia as a reliable academic source.
Miller, N. 2005. ‘Wikipedia and the Disappearing Author.’ Et Cetera. 62 (1): 37 – 41.
This journal article presents a favourable image of the Wikipedia as a movement which is challenging the constraints of traditional publishing. It explains the over- reliance of modern publishing on an author for legal purposes, and details the restriction copyright places on publications and other works. The piece describes the internet as a medium which challenges the traditional concepts of authorship and readership; exemplified by the Wikipedia which can be written and read by anyone. The Wikipedia also allows users to build on the work of others, using hypertext to add extra information to certain topics. The article also describes the ‘history’ function on Wikipedia pages which identifies users with their contributions and can contain reasons why changes have been made to certain articles. The piece depicts the Wikipedia as an example of the democratic process in operation, as it functions on the contributions and efforts of the general population. This source appears reliable as it includes detailed figures and facts to support its claims and also addresses the more complex motivations behind ‘open source’ publications.
Open Access: Wikipedia. 2005. About.Com. http://www.answers.com/topic/open-access (accessed August 2, 2005)
This source provides information on the ‘open source’ publishing movement and cites the Wikipedia as an example of this publication methodology. This resource, as an encyclopedia, details the history of ‘open source’ publishing in such areas as scientific archives and publications (such as ArXiv and Citseer). It also details the non –commercial incentives driving the ‘open source’ movement such as the spread of public knowledge and collaborative achievement. The piece also describes the ‘creative commons’ license that operates within an open publishing environment and the fact that an author must give permission for their contribution to be copyright free. This source provides a purely descriptive view of the ‘open source’ movement and the Wikipedia however provides basic information only and does not elaborate on Wikipedia content. This is a credible source, however as the ‘About’ encyclopedia is also available commercially it is understandable that does not expressly endorse the Wikipedia as it is a rival publication.
Salz, P. 2005. ‘Power to the People: Do it Yourself Content Distribution.’ E-Content. 28 (6): 36 – 42.
This piece discusses the economic and legal issues behind ‘open source’ publications such as the Wikipedia. The article details the operation of the ‘old economy’ in publications where authors own exclusive rights to their works. However, the introduction of the internet and the Wikipedia has signified that authors can no longer have monopolies over ideas and information. The Wikipedia has also allowed the contributors to share their work with others and be improved through collaboration. It presents a positive view of the Wikipedia and ‘open source’ projects as they do not limit creativity to certain products and software. This movement also exemplifies how the creative content and distribution marketplace can be lead by non-profit organizations such as the Wiki Foundation. This is a particularly reliable source as ‘E-Content’ is a journal specifically focused on technology issues. Peggy Anne Salz is a freelance author and journalist whose work focuses on the global mobile telecomm industry, making this article an extremely credible source in relation to ‘open source’ publishing.
Sunday: Weekend Edition (Washington). 2005. ‘Profile: Wikipedia’ Feb 20, 10.
This profile of the Wikipedia presents a skeptical and negative view of the encyclopedia. It cites problems with accuracy as the Wikipedia’s major setback and expresses the view that many of its users do not critically analyze the content on the encyclopedia. The article also notes that bypassing the moderator is not difficult and many mistakes remain on various entries. The article also suggests that the Wikipedia suffers from an overload of information as there is nothing to determine what is important and should be included in the publication. This is a reliable newspaper and source, however is extremely brief and does not address deeper issues about motivations and benefits of ‘open source’ publications. However, as this is a ‘general content’ newspaper article, there is understandable bias due to the competition between ‘old’ print media and ‘new’ digital publishing which must be taken into account when reading this article.
Taylor, C. 2005. ‘It's a Wiki, Wiki World.’ Time. 165 (23): 40 – 43.
This article presents a balanced review of the Wikipedia and addresses the strengths and weaknesses of an ‘open source’ project. Firstly, this article is a reliable and accurate source as Time Magazine is a well respected and established publication and presents an in-depth report on the Wikipedia. It also explains concepts and philosophies relating to ‘open source’ publishing without assuming that readers have previous knowledge. It describes the Wikipedia as an example of a ‘bottom up’ phenomenon as it incorporates contributions made by the general public. It also details the growth of another Wiki project, ‘WikiWikiWeb’ which is an online help manual for various software programs. On the other hand, the article also outlines the problems the Wikipedia has encountered being an ‘open source’ project, as there have been problems with fanatics and vandals who have targeted the site. A major example of this was during the 2004 US Presidential elections where the Wikipedia locked entries on George Bush and John Kerry as many contributors were not remaining objective. Whilst the article acknowledges the lack of authority and reliability of the Wikipedia it also supports the motivations behind the ‘open source’ movement.
Wendland, M. 2005. ‘Mike Wendland Column.’ Detroit Free Press, July 20, 15.
This source details the growth of the Wikipedia as the worlds ‘new encyclopedia’ that provides constant and continuously current information. It firstly details the fact that the Wikipedia is written by web users and it owned and operated by a non- profit organization. The Wikipedia foundation also has established other Wiki publications including Wicktionary, Wikiquote and Wikispecies which are also ‘open source’ and advertising free. The piece also provides information o the foundation of the Wikipedia in 2001 by James Wales, an advocate of open publishing and software. This article also highlights the fact that professional researches and academics have warned that some content contained in ‘open source’ publishing can be ill-informed and often written by amateurs. This is a credible business news publication and contains no identifiable bias; however it does only outline major facts and does not detail the philosophies of the ‘open source’ movement. Mike Wendland, a veteran US journalist, specializes in reporting on technology issues and news and has won over 20 Emmy Awards making him an extremely reliable author.
Anna cunningham 11:52, 12 Aug 2005 (EST)
