Sally, 10/02

The discussion Tuesday night got me thinking. Issues that, previously, were unknown to me were now out in the open. The declaration that we are an open-source culture is such an issue. Specifically, Wikipedia is an example of this new trend toward our becoming a participatory society. Dr. Rog gave an example of a fellow professor's continuous revisions on Wikipedia so that the information would be accurate. Dr. Rog's comment, "it's the story [on Wikipedia], we're interested in - not the truth." As a newcomer to our cultural shift, I am at first puzzled, then concerned that a site such as Wikipedia is so easily accessed by the person in search of valid information. Of course, part of my concern is that I recently Googled "anxiety and test performance" to identify the law associated with that particular correlation (an assignment in Research & Methods), and Wikipedia was one of the first sources listed. I clicked on it, and found what I was looking for: Yerkes-Dodson Law of Motivation. Now, in lecture, I discover that information may have been inaccurate! In my case, it was correct according to the concensus in the class, but what if it had not been!? And what if the other students relied on Wikipedia, as well? I know, I know - I should have known that Wikipedia is there just for the story - not the truth.

So, what purpose does a site like that really serve? Have I been living in a cave - no. But, I have been a little behind the curve regarding some of the changes in popular culture and now I see it's time to get informed about what's been happenin' "out" there! Logic should have told me that if the entry on Wikipedia can be edited, then the information may not be accurate. Well, I guess that is so foreign to me, that when google returned Wikipedia as a source, I went for it. Now, I know better. However, the other side to this issue is the fact that anyone can share their information regarding a particular topic on Wikipedia, and that could be quite interesting and illuminating. I'll give it that place of significance in our society.

Wikipedia is just one of many examples of our "participatory culture." Since accessibility is not limited to the US but is worldwide, Wikepedia could be the site that globally connects thought among the citizens of the world. That is an awesome thought (pun intended)! May we each have the intellect to decipher story from truth and this new participatory culture might work out ok. I really don't think we have a choice, so I'm jumping on the new popculture bandwagon. At 50, I've seen some changes along the way in media and technology; the "jury is still out on this one" for me, but I admit this open-source culture - with its far-reaching implications - is quite profound, indeed! It is definitely affecting our lives as we witness the convergence of truth and the story.