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
51
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
longtime/regular
解析
Wikipedia有800个长期的或固定的成员,他们的工作是对网站内容进行把关。longtime和regular两者在演讲中都出现过,而且意义相同,所以此处两者皆可。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/UB4O777K
0
专业英语八级
相关试题推荐
Therehasbeenmuchchatteraboutbankloanstolocalgovernments’financingvehicles,widelyregardedasoneofthemainrisks
Theworldseemsincreasinglydividedintothosewhofavorgeneticallymodified(GM)foodsandthosewhofearthem.Advocatesass
Mummiescaptureourimaginationsandourhearts.Fullofsecretsandmagic,theywereoncepeoplewholivedandloved,justasw
Googlemaybevaluedatmorethan$185billionandboastmillionsofusers,butthatdoesn’tmeantheInternetgiantisanymatc
Countlessmedicalstudieshaveconcludedthatplayingtoomanyvideogamescanbeharmfultoone’shealth.Now,however,itturn
ThemostimportantthingnowisforDemocratsnottopanic.Despitewhatyourgutistellingyou,thisisnottheendofthewor
In2009,Pfizerpaid$301millionsettleallegationsbytheJustice1.______DepartmentthatcompanyrepresentativesmarketedGe
WhenFuatEcerdecidedtogobacktoschoolforanM.B.A.afterthreeandahalfyearsworkingasaconsultant,hewantedtobe
Theterm"BritishDisease"isnowoftenusedtocharacterizeBritain’seconomic______.
A:Doyouthinkthatourbossisakindman?B:Itisfineweather,isn’tit?Theabovedialogueviolatestheprincipleof_____
随机试题
Supposewebuiltarobot(机器人)toexploretheplanetMars.Weprovidetherobotwithseeingdetectorstokeepitawayfromdange
精浆中有助于前列腺疾病诊断的成分是
目前认为志贺菌致病必须具备的条件是()
张、王、李、赵4人成立某合伙企业,合伙协议中未对经营期限作出规定。后赵认为合伙企业效益不好,想自己另外开立一家个人独资企业,因此希望退出合伙。则需要满足什么条件,赵才可以合法退伙?()
下列风险中,属于房地产投资系统风险的有()。[2009年考题]
简述小学生品德发展的基本特征。
党的十八大报告提出,要坚持中国特色反腐倡廉道路,坚持标本兼治、综合治理、惩防并举、注重预防方针,做到干部清正、政府清廉、政治清明。党坚定不移地反腐的目的在于()。①履行国家职能,全面建设小康社会②落实全心全意为人民服务的宗旨,
对“韩愈在《进学解》里发挥这个意思”一句中“这个意思”的理解正确的一项是:对下面句子在语段中的作用所作的分析,正确的一项是:其实这种“气”与“趣”,不只在自然中可以见出,在一般人生世相中也可得到。
如果臭氧在空气中的数量达到一定浓度之后,就会对人体造成严重的伤害。当人吸入臭氧的时候,臭氧就会因为其强氧化作用而使呼吸道产生烧灼感。造成呼吸系统充血或发炎,儿童、老人和患有呼吸道疾病的人受到臭氧的伤害尤为严重。据专家统计,在欧洲臭氧污染导致欧洲人的死亡率增
______(你一给某人发送私人信息)thanitappearedonthatperson’sscreen.
最新回复
(
0
)