Quick Reflections

So here are my reflections on editing Wikipedia.

1. Its easy to change mostly anything, but Wikipedia has become such an important source with a following that is dedicated enough to pick up any discrepancies, changes, falsehoods on heavily trafficked subjects.

2. Those that are most heavily trafficked are most relevant to the lives of the greatest number of people.

3. Its easy to write something false or overly subjective on less relevant subjects, but if they are less relevant, who really cares? In the whole scheme of things, does it matter if there are some inaccuracies on the Trinity College wikipedia site? Its my presumption that its not a particularly highly trafficked page. I doubt its used by anyone as the first go-to to find out information on the college. Thats what www.trincoll.edu is for!

4. The ease and access of true information that is obtained outweighs the few bad apples that can be found. To reference the basic Econ 101 formula, marginal utility > marginal cost!!!

My edits

Before:

Jarvis Hall – This section of the Long Walk contains single, double and quad dorms, primarily for freshmen and sophomores. It is rumored that the doubles were originally designed for students while the singles across the hallway were intended for their servants. In actuality, the single rooms were single bedrooms, which opened into living areas, which are currently the doubles and the hallway, and six rooms retain this layout. As of the 2008 school year, the massive Long Walk Reconstruction project has been completed, and the dorms are built in a classic style.

After:

Jarvis Hall – This section of the Long Walk contains six or eight person suites, with a mix of single and double occupancy rooms, complete with private bathroom and common area overlooking the Quad and Chapel. It is rumored that the suite doubles were originally designed for students while the singles were intended for their servants. Fall 2008 saw the end of the massive Long Walk Reconstruction Project, as both Jarvis and Seabury reopened. The Jarvis dormitories now have most modern amenities, including air conditioning, yet the classic Collegiate Gothic architecture is still maintained.

Added:

Today, Trinity College attracts students from all around the country and the world and remains one of the most academically competitive liberal arts colleges in the United States.

Before:

In 2009, The Princeton Review gave Trinity a 95 (out of 100) for selectivity.

After:

In 2009, The Princeton Review gave Trinity a 95 (out of 100) for selectivity. The admissions rate tends to hover in between 30% and 40%, making it a generally competitive and selective school. [2]

Cheating Time With Wikipedia

So I feel the main use of Wikipedia has to do with something I have little of as of late- TIME.

I'm getting ready for the Wikipedia haters tomorrow night. I'm sure I'll hear how its the end all of civilization, how it will results in the dumbing down of a generation, how it will give everyone who uses it - and only it - possibly misleading information which will make us all stupid.

But right now I'm going to come to its defense. Wikipedia helps me immensely. I never cite anything from it, nor use it for research. But its the best primer I've ever had for quick, accessible information. It has saved me hours of book work - hours that I wouldn't have anyway. And when you have five classes, varied extracurriculars and a job in a week that only has seven days, Wikipedia is a miracle. Its a web that keeps linking me to new pages of information.

I also don't buy the argument that looking things up on Wikipedia or Google makes people fake smart. I know that when I know one more piece of information on a subject, which I may have obtained from Wikipedia, I'm one step further in understanding the world and how it works.

Unrelated

Probably one of the most interesting news stories I've read in a long time. Really changes one's perspective on this occupation...

Wikipedia

I'm beginning my dabble into Wikipedia a bit late. I just created my account, and I'm going to edit the entry on something completely connected to my life and the class: Trinity!

I'm not quite sure how to work around Wikipedia. It is all very overwhelming to me.

The first things I notice about the page for Trinity is its lack of well roundedness. It delves into details on some aspects of the college but sorely lacks in others. The list of famous/powerful/noteworthy alums is extensive, but there is barely nothing about the academic aspects of the school.

There are also two cautionary notices at the top that Wikipedia has alerted its readers to:

1. This article needs additional citations for verification.

2. This article is written like an advertisement. Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view. (I guess this is my task!)

I'll blog again once I change the page.

Edit: I'm now listening to the four minute roundup on Wikipedia. Very informative, helpful.

I like:

Transition from 'anything goes' to 'more structured.' Very true. As wiki grows and becomes more legitimate (aka closer to an encyclopedia), it needs this type of change.

Aha!

So this line from the Computer World article partly confirms my theory of Google being a government:

"The practice is unlikely to change unless users respond by abandoning services that use the techniques. "

This is what I wrote:

"All of a sudden, everyone gets wind of this process and instant outrage occurs. Everyone suddenly becomes a libertarian advocating for privacy and separation from the government of Google. The grand bargain becomes a nightmare. Subsequently a populist based coup d 'etat happens. Google loses its luster, as millions either defect from it or force it to  tailor or stop its information collecting practices. Google's pinpoint accuracy disappears, as it is not able to access information it previously used to provide its exemplary, comprehensive service. Revenues and profits fall and Google is in deep trouble. "

On Google, IV

So my objective is to give a quick, untechnical summary of what happens when I Google something. From the assigned reading I've done and past impressions, this is what I can come up with. (I'm writing this before I read "What Google knows about you.")

1. I go to Google and type in something and search.

2. Google records my IP, retrieves my location, and gives me recommendations and ads based on my search and location.

3. Google sends that info to its vast database and then keeps it until the next time I search. This is done through cookies (I think)

4. I search again. Google remembers my info and tries to tailor that search more to my liking.

Is this correct, incorrect? Am I missing something? This process seems fairly innocent, which leads me to believe there could be other processes I'm overlooking. 

On Google, III

I feel like the beauty of Google can be summed up in this one line from a 2003 Salon article on, ironically enough, backlash at Google:

 "When they step up to a Google query box, Web users are expecting one thing from the search engine -- to be quickly directed to the one page that can solve some momentary, pressing mystery. Google provides such pages with remarkable consistency, and that accounts for its success"

But as millions embrace this simple and satisfying structure, they are participating in the grand bargain I talked about earlier. Eric Schmidt admits that in order to be as accurate as its users expect it to be, there needs to be some personal information gathering:

From a 2007 Financial Times article:

"Eric Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, said gathering more personal data was a key way for Google to expand and the company believes that is the logical extension of its stated mission to organise the world’s information."

The 2006 NPR piece is interesting because it presents a brief but nuanced view of Google. Google collects the longest lasting and probably most comprehensive information on its users, but it was the only company to not give in to the Justice Department's subpoena.  Is this Google being good or evil? Hard to say. 

----

The term 'personalized search' looms large. Is it helpful or intrusive when we search for something and Google, judging by the information its collected on you, provides a more specific answer. Collectively, would we rather type in 'dentist' and automatically get a list of dentists in Hartford County or would we rather take the extra step of typing in 'Hartford County Dentists' so long as Google doesn't know where we are? In this age of quick convenience, I believe many people will choose more disclosure for quicker results. But like I've said before, that is the risk Google takes in participating in its 'grand bargain'. 

On Google, Part II

What does "Don't be evil" mean? After reading Google's Code of Conduct, I think that the company is aware of four things:

1. Power corrupts. (Duh)

2. Google is immensely powerful.

3. For its own sake, and the sake of the 'greater good'- which the New Yorker article convinced me Google believes in- employees need to use common sense to keep their power in check and not exploit it, while still following basic guidelines that allow Google to operate and grow. 

4. People make stupid decisions. Because there is so much riding on Google's reputation, anyone who falls under the jurisdiction of the code of conduct should be aware of what it is, in order to avoid blemishing said reputation. 

It seems that the Search Engine Land blogger is trying to keep Google to its word. He is constantly finding loopholes and exploitations made by the company. Perhaps these errors can be interpreted as 'evil'. But even after reading the many links he references, I still feel I don't know enough about Google's operations to decide where they fall on the moral spectrum.

On Our 'Mental Image'

So Professor McEnroe's post argues that the mental image of information in our society has changed from this to this. I would argue that its changed to this:

As we'll explore later, Wikipedia has become a quick go-to for basic, sometimes reliable information. Its a diving board before research for so many people in my generation. Those that rely it exclusively are fools, but those who use it to get a quick primer on a subject (myself included) are pragmatists. 

On Google

After reading the New Yorker article on Google, only one question comes to my mind: what's the big problem?

It seems that Google, despite hitting tiny bumps in the road, is on a path to continued success. The economic downturn does not change the fact that the model they have created for transforming the way people search and find information is revolutionary. And it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Though the company is only making most of its money from the basic Google search, its still bringing in $4.2 billion (!!!) in profits. And 70% of Internet searches are done through Google. 

To address the two potential, thorough extremely unlikely, problems that I see Google facing in the future, I like to think of Google as a government or as a balloon.

If Google were a government, it would be a utopian democracy, ruling over the world but allowing immense freedom and equal access to information. I can't credit myself with this characterization, as it was addressed in Auletta's article. 'Page and Brin 'are utopians who believe deeply that 'if people have better information they will live better lives. They are technological optimists in the sense of saying, 'Let's produce this technology and things will work out'", he writes. 

So the government of Google believes in this grand bargain with the people. Its a genuine belief that their government will actually improve the world. Google provides stellar, pinpoint accurate information to its users in exchange for increasingly detailed data on their activities and lives. So far millions are satisfied with this sacrifice of anonymity. But think for a second that "we" (the masses) are ignorant of our constant full disclosure of information. We just search and search and search, not thinking of the implications of what we share. This is where Google may face a problem. Let's assume that most of us really don't know Google keeps all this information on us. All of a sudden, everyone gets wind of this process and instant outrage occurs. Everyone suddenly becomes a libertarian advocating for privacy and separation from the government of Google. The grand bargain becomes a nightmare. Subsequently a populist based coup d 'etat happens. Google loses its luster, as millions either defect from it or force it to  tailor or stop its information collecting practices. Google's pinpoint accuracy disappears, as it is not able to access information it previously used to provide its exemplary, comprehensive service. Revenues and profits fall and Google is in deep trouble. 

Far-fetched, I know.

The second, less concrete, and more psychological possibility looks at Google as a balloon. Its rapid expansion makes it bigger and bigger as it fills with air (i.e. ego/power/scope) and it finally pops. It contents disperse everywhere, leaving only a mess in its wake. Again, very unlikely to happen, as Google seems to counter its rapid expansion with sustained temperance. 

Note: In the interest of full disclosure, I Googled three times in order to get definitions and clarifications before I published this post. Ha!

On Newspaper Woes

I realize we have moved on from our discussion and dissection of the traditional newspaper, but I found a cartoon funny enough to share here. 

Last week a friend of mine pointed me to an unconventional Facebook ‘Event Invite’ he received. The invitation, for once not created as a result of an unfortunate 2:30 AM phone/toilet accident or to promote a party, was requesting a vote for a specific caption in The New Yorker Cartoon Caption Contest. The event creator, a Trinity undergrad, was a finalist in the magazine’s weekly competition, and he was using Facebook as his campaign medium.

I couldn’t help but be surprised and impressed at this shrewd calculation. The event had been sent to over 1,000 people. Now I have no idea how many people worldwide vote per week for the contest winner, but I can’t help but think that the use of Facebook to get this particular finalist some extra votes is certainly beneficial and could potentially make the difference between winning and losing. Were it not for the event invite, I would not have voted. But I found myself entering in my contact information on The New Yorker website and selecting his caption solely for the sake of helping to advance one of my fellow Bantam’s place in the world. (I also thought it was the best/funniest out of the three choices.)

So how does it become that a bastion in the traditional world of magazine publishing, and one of the only institutions to be saved from Conde Nast’s recent brutal budget cuts, finds itself as part of the Facebook universe? If the overall goal of the New Yorker, or any media outlet, is to reach as many people as possible, then Facebook has become the go-to, and I think that’s a great thing, as long as these heralded institutions do not die out because of Facebook. Old media has adopted using the new media because they have no other choice, and as a result, they are now reaching a greater audience, even though they are losing money because of it.

The power of Facebook to change the way we communicate has become such a relevant part of so many of our lives that while thinking about this week’s class subject I couldn’t help but question, “What would my life be like without Facebook?” I believe it would be one disconnected from the realm of daily goings-on that makes life so spontaneous and significant. I’ve used Facebook to share, to learn, to read, to catch up, and even to gain a better sense of self. Anyone knows that the creation of one’s public profile is a period of self-reflection – a studied crystallization of who we are. We have to think what we want to be shared with the world- the image of ourselves that we don’t mind any objective reader seeing. Our interests, activities, favorite things, photos, and interactions with friends make us unique beings. And to see that documented every day is quite enchanting.

Facebook also makes us more active participants in our social culture. It has become for me one of the most convenient mediums for sharing articles, pictures, videos, and thoughts with all of my friends. And I feel that I’ve digested a lot via Facebook, hopefully bringing me closer on my path to adulthood and enlightenment. The power of instantaneous give and take is amazing.

Of course, there is a lot of trash out there. I detest the ‘Farmville’ or ‘Zombie Attacks’ applications that seem to be infiltrating the website. But I love that I can become a fan of NPR and get posts/updates that I would have missed. Just the other day I listened to an hour-long concert by Jamie Cullum all because it came up on my Facebook feed. I had no idea the concert had even taken place before I saw the post, and listening to it while writing a paper on E.M. Forster’s A Passage To India was a treat.

Just as we try everyday to get the most out of life, we must try to get the most out of Facebook. This requires a filtering of the bad and an embrace of the good.  Just like I make sure to filter actual things that are negative or unpleasant in real life, so can I ignore every Zombie Attack someone throws at me. This maximum utilization of the positive in both Facebook and life result in the most satisfying human experiences.

Some of my past entries have also concerned Facebook, so I encourage you to read those as well. 

On Facebook Magnetism

I apologize for my limited blog posts so far this week, but a comprehensive one is coming tomorrow.

In the meantime, I'm working on an English essay and two History assignments. Needless to say, I'm fairly swamped with work. I make this statement not for sympathy or as an excuse, but because of one strange peculiarity. Amidst all my work, the first thing I continually do when I open up my laptop is click on Facebook. I barely spend any time on it, and usually nothing new or exciting has happened. But I still do it. And I don't know why. Perhaps its a slight addiction, but the hold that it has  fascinates and perplexes me. Ahhhh!!!