Post #4

To be honest, Wikipedia has hardly been a site that I have frequently visited. This is probably because I don't really use the internet for research. Yes there is the benefits of a search engine such as google, but my inability to determine what is legitimate, or relevant leaves me in a spot of bother. There is just so much information out there! Big chunky book with a good index suits me fine. However, the concept of Wikipedia or a "wiki" does appeal to me. It brings a variety and range of opinions to the web page. Although its lack of validity is a rather important factor, not to be overlooked. In Chesneys (haha can't help but think of the wee red head on Coro...) reading this week he develops this point further in that the lack of authority is questionable. The fact that this site aims to provide information, but openly admits to the possibility of being incorrect is much different to that of the older informative web sites such as Britannica Online. There has been a noted shift in authority, as Erika discussed in our lecture; the distinction between producer and consumer is blurred. Anyone can be an 'author' through using a tool like blogger or facebook, the hard bits getting the reader.
I think that online information (particularly Wikipedia) should be monitored for the obvious fact or fiction reason, but mainly because a communicative tool as useful as the internet should not support a reputation for its lack of truth. A resource that is universally appreciated by its users should really aim to provide an accurate service. Wikipedia is just one example of suspicious reliability, but if internet users are to seek information then I think that some form of authority should aim to maintain truth. Maybe then I could utilize it more!