Summary Of The Rise And Decline Of Wikipedia

The web is a worldwide PC organize giving an assortment of data, permitting individuals the simplicity of gets to and productivity of finding the information they crave, however there are a few disadvantages to the web. In the article "Is Google Making Us Stupid" the writer Nicholas Carr's subject on the web is that the data that is expressed to is so efficient and effective to information that our minds don’t processes as well as retain the knowledge thrown at us. Carr contends that the web is rewiring his cerebrum. The way Carr believes is divergent, making basic considering, breaking down, and revealing verifiable dialect in the content exceptionally troublesome. He fears that the web make us lose the not just the capacity to hold the information

Over the years, technology has developed into something that we cannot live without. Society is constantly being dictated and reshaped by the newest technology. In Nicholas Carr’s article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid”, he expounded on the uncomfortable sense that someone, or something was tinkering with his brain. He realized that he’s not thinking the way he used to. Additionally, he explains how our brains aren’t familiar with critical thinking anymore. He also introduces the idea that the Internet is doing more harm to us than good. I believe Carr’s ideas on the negative effects of the Internet are well founded. The validity surrounds us daily.

In the Article “How Google, Wikipedia Have Changed Our Lives…” Jennifer Maderazo states that, we’ve become so reliant on electronic information resources. Researching then was implying researching involved going through book after book, making copies, highlighting copies then start to write. Researching Now states that everything research is related to the internet and if not in use there is a feeling of being crippled. In the article learning then gives the feeling of how relying on the classroom experience was more helpful for information. In addition, in learning now says that the tolerance level would be the same as the internet attention span. Based on the past lets us know how we didn’t have the resources to just look up a song or the

Journalist, Clive Thompson in his book, “Smarter Than You Think”, specifically in the chapter titled, “Public Thinking”, published on September 12, 2013, addresses the topic of technology and argues that because of the internet, we are doing more writing now than ever. Therefore technology is helping us think publicly in new and improved ways. He supports this claim by asserting that there is an improvement in our writing, which is happening because of the “audience effect”, he then goes on to say that anything we write changes the way we think, and finally he talks about how the internet builds connections, which is essential to the spread of new ideas. Thompson’s purpose is to inform readers about how the internet is a tool being used to advance our society in order to encourage more people to partake in online, public thinking. He adopts a contemplative tone for his audience, the readers of The New York Times, and others interested in the topic of technology. It is my intention in this paper to analyze the author’s subclaims and use of rhetorical strategies.

Being able to instantly gather information is easier than it has ever been before. People can go on the internet, press a few buttons and are given an endless amount of information. Do not anything about the topic, just Google it and it will provide the information that is needed. It has come to the point where people rely on the internet daily. However, there are downsides to having technology surrounding society most of the time. In the article “Is Google Making Us Stupid? ” from the July/August 2008 edition of The Atlantic, Nicholas Carr, a writer and former member of Britannica’s Encyclopedia editorial board of advisors, expresses how technology is negatively changing how we think and act because of the influences people get from the technology

People are introduced to a new technological advancement almost everyday. Some of them make our lives easier; however, every good thing has a bad side. Some influential events may be causes of really adverse effects on the way of our lives. Without doubt, invention of the Internet is one of the most powerful events world-wide. Thanks to the Internet, lots of things such as communication, research, bank transactions, shopping, etc. can be done within just a couple of seconds. While the Internet provides us these incredible conveniences, some negates would be inevitable on people. In the article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, published by The Atlantic Magazine, in 2008, Nicholas Carr talks about these adverse affects of the Internet. He claims that the internet is changing our research habits and the way we reach information in a negative manner.

The Internet is an uncensored place, where knowledge flows freely, and uninterrupted. The site en.wikipedia.org, is an online wikipedia freely editable by anyone. Therefore, ideas and knowledge can be exchanged freely, if they are accurate, that is another question. Since it is editable by anyone, information can be false, but in most cases, the information found there is highly accurate and updated frequently. You can find knowledge on a range of topics, from WW2, to Philosophy, even to the Bolshevik Uprising. This is an example of what can happen when the free exchange of ideas and knowledge, is both not limited, and uncensored. “There must be something in books, something we can’t imagine, to make a woman stay in a burning house; there must be something there. You don’t stay for nothing.”(Bradbury, 1953) This quote from Montag relates to a world where knowledge isn’t limited. He ponders why a woman, would stay in a burning house, just for her books, just for the potential knowledge in them.

Nicholas Carr, Harvard alumni and member of Encyclopedia Britannica’s editorial board of advisors, questioned the effects of search engines on our minds in his article to The Atlantic entitled, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” claiming that the use of search engines causes a loss of the ability to deeply read and as therefore causes our minds to lose the ability to process information. He used personal stories to depict the apparent change in his and others ' minds from having the ability to "read deeply," to habitually skimming over the text in an effort to hastily extract information. Specifically targeting the leaders of the Google search engine - whom he said believe that, "Ambiguity is not an opening for insight but a bug to be fixed," - he related several causal reasons as to why the engines affect our minds negatively. He used a study on online research habits from the University College London to stress the point that people conducting research tend to read "no more than one or two pages of an article or book

The ultimate reason Marshal Poe does this is to illustrate his views on information sharing and depict the communities role in it. Poe mentions, “Wikipedia has the potential to be the greatest effort in collaborative gathering the world has ever known, and it may well be the greatest effort in voluntary collaboration of any kind.”, in the very beginning of his article to present his view on collaboration within the community. He describes wikipedia as “the most comprehensive repository of human knowledge in human history.” (Poe 349) This serves to contribute to the idea that information sharing lies within both the community and technology, which was also shown by Marshall Poe upon his discussion of the usage of the bottom-up system and cathedral model. Marshall Poe is ultimately stating that when power is given to the public, they will use it to their own advantage and promote true knowledge, as exemplified through his new and improved biography on Wikipedia. Information sharing is contributing to the progress of human

Wikipedia is a collaborative resource, which aims to be a compendium of all human knowledge. In a serious examination of Wikipedia as a credible and valid source of information we need to place our argument within a definable framework. As I will show information has many uses, for the purposes of this paper I will examine the use of Wikipedia for scholarly research, the kind, which I will be utilizing throughout the rest of my MBA program. I will be evaluating Wikipedia based on the parameters set forth by Brenda Spatt. The credentials, Impartiality, style/tone, and currency of Wikipedia will all be examined in this paper (Spatt 2011).

Seigenthaler explains to his readers why websites such as Wikipedia, Answers.com, and Reference.com are unreliable sources for information. He also wants to raise the awareness of how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is designed for individuals to post information whether it is accurate or false. People don’t need any expertise or knowledge to post any kind of information. The author also thinks that some individuals may post false information out of malice. He adopts an angry and frustrated tone in his entire article. This can be seen in his use of the words “sick mind,” “mind-blogging,” “toxic sentences,” “poison- pen intellects,” “irresponsible.” Seigenthaler assumes his readers are unaware of Wikipedia is an unreliable source. In order to appeal

Advancements in technology have made our lives significantly easier to live. With the invention of the Internet, education is enhanced, communication is made easier and quicker, and is the platform for greatness in the younger generation. However, an author by the name of Nicholas Carr argues that the Internet is changing the way we think and work for the worst, in his article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”. Carr suggests that as the Internet becomes our primary source of information, it begins to affect our ability to read books and other pieces of writing. Based on the topic of technology and how it has affected society’s minds, many intellectuals have both challenged and adhered to Carr’s article. Through this article, I plan to expose these articles written by Steven Pinker and Clay Shirky, that correlate to Nicholas Carr’s text; critically evaluate their strategy in writing, and then provide my opinion on the subject.

When students are doing research on the internet, Wikipedia is usually one of the first site to appear. For students, the site is usually tempting to click, but they are quickly reminded by their teachers that Wikipedia should not be used as a site of knowledge. They label the site as inaccurate, unreliable, and uncreditable. In Boyd’s article she writes that teachers consistently tell students to stay clear of Wikipedia at all cost. Students should not have to see the site as tempting. They should be allowed to use it and embrace the site. Wikipedia has so much educational potential and should not be ignored by teachers. Boyd also writes that some analyses have shown that Wikipedia’s content is just as creditable as, if not more reliable than, more traditional resources.

People all over the world often go to Wikipedia as a quick and easy reference to their specific topic. Wikipedia has become one of the biggest online encyclopedias; it exists in diverse languages and contains a surplus collection of articles. It gives an overview of the specific subject, linking sources from primary and secondary reliable sources. According to “We Can’t Ignore the Influence of Digital Technologies,” written by Cathy N. Davidson, “Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia. It is a knowledge community, uniting anonymous readers all over the world who edit and correct grammar, style, interpretations, and facts...” (1). With that in mind, this also means that even people ranging in their elementary years can contribute to the website.

Since its creation in “2001,” Wikipedia has grown to be the “largest and most popular general reference work on the internet” (Wikipedia). According to Alexa, a company owned by Amazon which collects and distributes statistics on website traffic, Wikipedia is currently the “[sixth]” most popular website in the United States, and the “[fifth]” most popular website worldwide (wikipedia.org Traffic Statistics). However, there are several groups of people who argue that Wikipedia’s collaborative emphasis also is its greatest flaw, as it makes the encyclopedia lack credibility, and as a result, they believe that the site is unfit for use in an academic setting. While it is true that the anonymity of Wikipedia’s editors significantly reduces the