Blogs Vs. Wikis

New Media offers a variety of ways to share information. The emergence of various blogs and wikis allows users themselves to generate content and use it; it also allows the person to have control over the content that is generated. Convergence of this type creates a need for someone to moderate the contributing process on informational sites such as Wikipedia. In an online environment where anyone can add information anonymously it is sometimes difficult to distinguish which information can be considered reliable and which can not. This issue is brought to light in an online article by CNN entitled "Wikipedia: No Longer the Wild West?" by John D. Sutter. The article discusses how with increased use and popularity Wikipedia is in need of people who will verify the accuracy of content posted to the site, something which is somewhat of a departure from the original purpose of Wikipedia where everyone can contribute freely. The article states "Since Wikipedia was founded in 2001, a number of sites have popped up employing its basic philosophy that users can control the content of the Web." However since so many of us are turning to Wikipedia to actually verify information, or gain detailed knowledge of a topic we are interested in, it becomes a necessity for the information on the site to have some credibility. In the generation of Web 2.0 users, we no longer seek out information in libraries and scholarly journals, or through newspapers or from the primary source. We are so used to "Googling" and "Wikiing" everything and that becomes the primary source of gathering information for us. Unfortunately, as stated in this article, there are certain ethical issues that arise from having the power to use this technology, since users are ultimately themselves the one's who are producing the content. An example given in the article is information regarding deaths of two senators appeared on Wikipedia which was false.
Although most people seem unhappy with the idea of appointing people to moderate the content posted to Wikipedia, it becomes evident that it is a necessity in an online community which is becoming more complex as the article mentions. It also becomes evident that Wikis are also being used for more practical purposes, and therefore need some degree of control as to the content posted to them. An innovative use of the technology is mentioned in the article in The New York Times "An Internal Wiki That Is Not Classifies" by Noam Cohen. The State Department has managed to utilize the Wiki technology in a collaborative way to gather biographical information about diplomats. The "Diplopedia" allows for free-flow of information about one's political career, thus allowing for better networking and preparation for important meetings. What is interesting is that the site pretty much works as a a normal Wiki and there are no restrictions on what someone could post. The catch is however as the article points out, that posts can be "traced back to the user", therefore this creates a sense of responsibility over what information someone posts, unlike the anonymity users enjoy on Wikipedia.
What follows is the question of how much freedom does the user actually have in contributing his/her content to the web, if sites such as Wikipedia were to be controlled? The article "Wikipedia: No Longer the Wild West?" lead to an answer from a different perspective saying that "Others see the change as a sign that these communities of online volunteers are getting more complex and they may need more rules." The fact that people are volunteering to edit the content on Wikipedia also ensures that it is ultimately still us, users who have the control.
As far as fear of lack of generating original content goes, as is also mentioned in the same article, there already exists a good solution: blogs. After all, Wikipedia is an informational resource which is more of a collection of facts rather than opinions, different from a platform for creativity found on Youtube, Blogger, Flickr, Myspace, etc... These sites provide the user with freedom to express their creativity through video, audio, pictures, opinions, and are the hub for sharing original content with the rest of the online community. Blogs, for example, are great for self expression wher anyone can become an author. The author can choose to document his/her day, analyze current events and give their opinion, post original stories or poems, and exchange opinion through the comments section. Many business also run their own blogs, and example being the fashion Magazine "Vanity Fair". Essentially, both Blogs and Wikis provide us with interesting information. The difference however lies in the type and quality of information each offers.