The article tells us about how traditional encyclopedia is more superior than online communal encyclopedia. The author stated several problems that online encyclopedia faced and the lecturer countered those arguments. Here’s the summary of that debate.
First, the author stated that online encyclopedia lacks credibility because it doesn’t say anything about its content writers’s background. Everybody can contribute to that encyclopedia. Meanwhile at traditional encyclopedia, only professionals do that job. But the lecturer argued that every encyclopedia never has been 100% accurate, even if the writers are professionals. Besides, online encyclopedia credibility can be improved with easier correction that the traditional one lacks.
Second, online encyclopedia is more prone to be hijacked because of its openness. It wouldn’t happen in a traditional one because it has its publisher team. But, the improvement can be applied in online encyclopedia if its articles are in read-only formats. Analogous to the publisher team in traditional encyclopedia, the online one can also has special editor teams that are recruited by democratic or justified means.
Third, online encyclopedia often tells too much about popular topics and trivial details, while the traditional one is more balanced and holistic. But it is the fact that online encyclopedia is democratic because it represents what the people are interested in.
Komentar
Posting Komentar