Matthew Drake

@webmail -

Assignment One

Assignment Two

Assignment Three

Assignment Four

Assignment Five

Assignment Six

 

Project One

Project Two

Project Three

Project Four

Project Five

Project Six

Project Seven

Project Eight

 

How exactly do we define what is correct? Correct grammar has changed over the history of society time and time again simply because those that use the grammar use it in different ways. The correct concepts of mathematics and sciences are clearly defined by thos that derive data and give it an interperation. With Wikipedia, the online dictionary available to be viewed and edited by anyone who choses to do so, the "correctness" that is derived from a general interperation shows itself almost as iimmediately as the data exchange rate one can view and change it as. Wikipedia is similar to a hive mentallity. All can give and take information until we have the purest collaboration possible because all have given their input. Human knowledge in this case is popular knowledge. And in most cases, that's all it does take to become real knowledge. What if the knowledge truly is incorrect though? In the case of a possible mass contribuiton, there is also a mass review of material contributed. For ever one hundred articles added to the database, there are one hundred thousand users reviewing, checking, and documenting errors within those articles. The question that would arise next would be, "what about disputed information?" For the fun of it, I searched for "Jesus". The result was information from multiple points of view and what EVERYONE had to say, not just someone. This led to independant interperetations. The fortunate situation here is that Wikipedia knows what it is; in fact, Wikipedia knows what all knowledge is, something that is subject to interperetation. The encyclopedia is a set of books written by people that know a lot about their field. How is Wikipedia any different? Aside from the frauds and newbs(look up newb in Wikipedia for full definition) that could try to provide false information or non-expertise among articles, there is a massive collection of articles by those that love and know them best. If one were to get knowledge from anywhere, how could it be possible that this would this not be the absolute best way to do it?

September 22nd, 2005