首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
One-click Content, No Guarantees Wikipedia is the first major reference work with a democratic premise. Its signature streng
One-click Content, No Guarantees Wikipedia is the first major reference work with a democratic premise. Its signature streng
admin
2013-03-21
48
问题
One-click Content, No Guarantees
Wikipedia is the first major reference work with a democratic premise. Its signature strength, however, is also its vulnerability, because user-generated articles are often (1)______or irrelevant. Who are the gatekeepers? How do they go about their business? Can we trust online encyclopedias? These are the questions I’m going to explore in today’s mini-lecture.
There are about 800 (2)______contributors, or Wikipedians, as they like to call themselves, who oversee this online encyclopedia. They have volunteered to maintain the site and help (3)______its accuracy.
Wikipedians claim the (4)______is actually carefully executed and multilayered. If there’s outright vandalism, an online team of hundreds of volunteers will take care of it. This is the first line of defense. In many cases, however, the decision to keep or cut is not as straightforward because a lot of stuff is (5)______. For example, when Florida author and programmer Rogers Cadenhead wrote an entry about himself, Wikipedians had to decide whether he was notable enough to warrant his own entry. When there is a (6)______, each Wikipedian speaks his or her piece, and then all administrators familiar with the issue are polled for a consensus, and changes are made accordingly.
Wikipedia administrators need not have scholarly credentials— the only requirements for the positions are keen research skills, (7)______, and lots of spare time. As a result, many publishers and academics have criticized the Wikipedia because they think leaving it open for anyone to contribute means that its content and accuracy will tend toward the mediocre.
Still, many users and contributors agree that the system works well, if not perfectly, in practice. In a head-to-head comparison of Wikipedia and Britannica in the journal Nature last year, only (8)______was shown.
What users should do is check their online finds against other (9)______and be aware of Wikipedia’s unique strengths and weaknesses. Wikipedia is a (10)______work in progress.
One-Click Content, No Guarantees
Should you trust the world’s first user-generated encyclopedia?
If you logged on to Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia last January to do research on current members of the U.S. Congress, you may have been surprised to find that the official entry for a Representative noted that he smelled of "cow dung".
Within hours, Wikipedia administrators had intercepted the renegade edits—but not before the incident provoked a nationwide media furor, spurring questions about the encyclopedia’s credibility. As the first-ever major reference work with a democratic premise—that anyone can contribute an article or edit an entry—Wikipedia has generated shared scholarly efforts to rival those of any literary or philosophical movement in history. Its signature strength, however, is also its greatest vulnerability. User-generated articles are often inaccurate or irrelevant, and vandals like the political jokesters are a constant threat. As a result, the role of the encyclopedia’s gatekeepers assumes added importance. Who are they, and how do they go about the business of deciding which new content will pass through their crucible? Can we trust online encyclopedias? These are the questions I’m going to explore in today’s mini-lecture.
Founded in 2001 by Jimmy Donal Wales, a former Chicago options trader, Wikipedia has morphed into a cultural phenomenon on a par with Google. Internet users have contributed more than 3 million articles in 200 languages to the site, and every few seconds, a new article or edit is added to Wikipedia’s 180-gigabyte database. Overseeing the entire gargantuan knowledge machine are the Wikipedia elite:about 800 longtime contributors who have volunteered to maintain the site and help ensure its accuracy.
The influx of information is so great that it’s easy to characterize content-control efforts as potshots into a crowd, but Wikipedians—as regular contributors like to call themselves—claim the review process is actually carefully executed and multilayered. The first line of defense is the so-called recent changes patrol, an online SWAT team made up of hundreds of volunteers who comb new or recently modified content for errors. If there’s outright vandalism, the recent changes patrol will avert the situation fairly quickly.
In many cases, however, the decision to keep or cut is not as straightforward.A lot of stuff is borderline. A question often asked is:"Is it verifiable? Is it important enough to go into the encyclopedia?" Disputes among administrators—senior Wikipedians who have the power to block or roll back edits on an entry, or even to delete an entry outright—about the validity or relevance of a fact or article can lead to pages—long online debates. When Florida author and programmer Rogers Cadenhead wrote an entry about himself, for instance, the question at issue was not whether Cadenhead was guilty of self-promotion, but whether he was notable enough to warrant his own entry. "Keep author of popular books," one Wikipedian weighed in. "Writing a book itself does not mean the person should be included," another administrator fired back. Someone looked up the books on Amazon, and Cadenhead’s sales rankings are 30 000 and 80 000. In the end, Cadenhead’s entry was kept—along with a note about the controversy.
The give-and-take review process is similar to a collegiate debate round. After each Wikipedian speaks his or her piece, all administrators familiar with the issue are polled for a consensus, and changes are made accordingly.
Unlike advisors at publications like the World Book Encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Bri-tannica, Wikipedia administrators need not have scholarly credentials— the only requirements for the positions are keen research skills, a critical eye, and lots of spare time. The more users and gatekeepers who weigh in on an entry, the thinking goes, the more detailed and accurate it becomes, ideally producing a whole greater than the sum of its parts.
Many publishers and academics, however, have criticized the Wikipedia model on the grounds that it generates the informational equivalent of sludge. The lack of formal gatekeeping procedures, they say, ensures that the lowest common denominator will prevail—and since no experts or editors are hired to vet articles, no clear standards exist for accuracy or writing quality. Leaving Wikipedia open for anyone to contribute means that its content and accuracy will tend toward the mediocre.
Still, many users and contributors agree that the system works well, if not perfectly, in practice. And for those who assume that Wikipedia’s policies translate into general inaccuracy, in a head-to-head comparison of Wikipedia and Britannica in the journal Nature last year, Britannica had an average of three errors per published science article, while Wikipedia had four—a difference so slight it left the primacy of Britannica’s venerated review process in question.
That’s not to say Wikipedia users should ever feel so confident as to take the encyclopedia’s content on faith. Wales, the founder, advises readers to check their online finds against other sources and to be aware of Wikipedia’s unique strengths and weaknesses, especially when gathering information for research projects. Now let me end my lecture with Wales’ words: "No encyclopedia article is intended to be a primary source—it’s just an introductory summary, and people should approach it that way—Wikipedia’s timeliness is really impressive, and so is the sheer amount of brainpower we bring to bear on complicated questions. But because everything is so open and fluid, you have to be aware that anything on the site could be broken at any given moment. It’s a live work in progress."
选项
答案
borderline
解析
这里讨论的是第二种情况,即信息的价值不是一眼就能判断出的,而是边缘情况,此处的borderline和前文的not as straightforward同义。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/JXRYFFFM
0
专业英语八级
相关试题推荐
AlanTuringandComputerscienceComputerplaysveryimportantroleintoday’sworld,whichistheresultofmanyresearchers
ClassificationsofCulturesAccordingtoEdwardHall,differentculturesresultindifferentideasabouttheworld.Hallis
Currenteconomichardshipshavehadwhatiscalledinconstitutionallawa"disparateimpact":Thecrisishasnotafflictedever
WhenscientistsattheAustralianInstituteofSportrecentlydecidedtochecktheVitaminDstatusofsomeofthatcountry’sel
ThedayofprotestingatEnglishWikipediabroughtmeasurableresults,1.______thesite’sadministratorsreported:fourmillion
OnDec.28,a2-year-oldgraywolfcrossedthestatelinefromOregon,becomingfirstofhisspeciestorunwildherein88yea
我喜爱湖。湖是大地的眼睛,湖是一种流动的深情,湖是生活中没有被剥夺的一点奇妙。早在幼年时候,一见到北海公园的太液池,我就眼睛一亮。在贫穷和危险的旧社会,太液池是一个意外的惊喜,是一种奇异的温柔,是一种孩提式的敞露与清流。我常常认为,大地与人之间有
TheCooperativePrinciplewasproposedby
不管是好习惯还是坏习惯,都是逐渐养成的。当一个人重复做某件事时,一种看不见的力量驱使他去重复做同一件事,这样就养成了习惯。习惯一旦形成,要改掉它是网难的,有时是不可能的。所以,我们在形成习惯的时候要小心谨慎,这一点是非常重要的。小孩子常常会养成坏习惯。这些
A、Art.B、French.C、German.D、Chemistry.A
随机试题
自喷井采油树是依靠()来调节产量的。
A.肺容积变化/跨肺压变化B.胸腔容积变化/跨胸壁压变化C.肺容积变化/(跨肺压变化X肺总量)D.1/胸廓顺应性+1/肺顺应性E.大气压与肺内压之差/单位时间内气体流量表示比顺应性的公式是
此患儿OT试验出现阴性反应,最可能的原因是正确的治疗方法是
患者,男,19岁。患病1周,牙龈乳头坏死,前牙唇侧明显,坏死形成溃疡处凹陷,表面灰白色假膜,触之出血明显,口腔有腐性口臭。体温37.8℃,颏下淋巴结肿痛,既往未出现全身明显异常现象。有辅助诊断意义的检查是
A、口服茶碱控释片B、静脉输注甲泼尼龙,雾化吸入β2受体激动剂C、口服泼尼松,短期使用(1周)D、吸入异丙肾上腺素E、使用麻黄碱;下列哮喘病人应采取哪项治疗措施女性,32岁,哮喘史10年,近年来发作频繁,3天前因搬家劳
患者女,30岁,多次尿细菌培养阳性,其他症状不明显,诊断为肾盂肾炎。最常见的致病菌是
甲乙双方订立买卖合同,约定收货后一周内付款,甲方在交货前发现乙方经营状况严重恶化,根据有关法律的规定,甲方可()。
甲企业为在最短时间内扩大企业规模,使企业迈上一个新台阶,决定采用并购的形式收购另外一家企业,但最终未能成功。以下选项中不属于并购失败原因的是()。
税收法律关系的产生是主体之间权利与义务的形成,其产生的直接原因是()。
我国专利权的客体包括()
最新回复
(
0
)