Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.017854942 = product of:
  0.035709884 = sum of:
    0.035709884 = product of:
      0.07141977 = sum of:
        0.07141977 = weight(_text_:i in 951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07141977 = score(doc=951,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.41672117 = fieldWeight in 951, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=951)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Wikipedia is a repository of information freely available to those with Internet access. Given its radical departure from previous encyclopedias, it is not surprising that it is controversial. Wikipedia is freely editable, leading to debates over accuracy and writing style. It has also included topics, especially in the area of popular culture, which some believe are not appropriate for a serious, comprehensive encyclopedia. In this article, I do not examine these arguments, but, rather, a different problem confronting Wikipedia. Through a case study of Cambodian history articles, I demonstrate how Wikipedia limits itself through a largely unconscious appropriation of the dominant discourse of representation surrounding its objects of inquiry. When article quality is examined, a distinct pattern emerges that can readily be matched to the dominant historiographical tradition of Cambodian history. As well as presenting this case study as a demonstration of the influence of dominant discursive narratives, I wish to contextualize this privileging of particular discourses within debates about the New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO) that emerged in the 1970s. I argue that the NWICO can be useful in our thinking about the relationship of information professionals to Wikipedia today.

0.017675493 = product of:
  0.035350986 = sum of:
    0.035350986 = product of:
      0.07070197 = sum of:
        0.07070197 = weight(_text_:i in 3054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07070197 = score(doc=3054,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.41253293 = fieldWeight in 3054, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3054)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Wikipedia is increasingly an important source of information for many. Hence, it is important to develop an understanding of how it is situated within society and the wider roles it is called onto perform. This article argues that one of these roles is as a depository of collective memory. Building on the work of Pentzold, I present a case study of the English Wikipedia article on the Vietnam War to demonstrate that the article, or more accurately, its talk pages, provide a forum for the contestation of collective memory. I further argue that this function is one that should be supported by libraries as they position themselves within a rapidly changing digital world.

0.015150423 = product of:
  0.030300846 = sum of:
    0.030300846 = product of:
      0.060601693 = sum of:
        0.060601693 = weight(_text_:i in 4459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060601693 = score(doc=4459,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.35359967 = fieldWeight in 4459, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4459)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Given their ease of use and capability for interactivity, new media are seen as having the potential to make visible previously marginalized voices. The online presence of the writing of history is increasing, and this potential would be a welcome development for the field as it would create a much richer set of easily available historical perspectives. However, this article suggests that the achievement of this promise is fraught with difficulty and that a more likely outcome is a mapping of the status quo in historical representation onto the new media. To illustrate this, I present an analysis of the Wikipedia accounts of Singaporean and Philippine history. For Singapore, alternative historical visions are not as developed as those for the Philippines, and this is reflected in the nature of the respective Wikipedia accounts. I suggest that a possible means to achieve something more of the promise of digital media for history is for information professionals to take a keener interest in Wikipedia, with an eye to helping include accounts of documented historical perspectives that are ignored by mainstream historiographical traditions.

0.010712966 = product of:
  0.021425933 = sum of:
    0.021425933 = product of:
      0.042851865 = sum of:
        0.042851865 = weight(_text_:i in 391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042851865 = score(doc=391,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 391, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=391)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Wikipedia is frequently viewed as an inclusive medium. But inclusivity within this online encyclopedia is not a simple matter of just allowing anyone to contribute. In its quest for legitimacy as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia relies on outsiders to judge claims championed by rival editors. In choosing these experts, Wikipedians define the boundaries of acceptable comment on any given subject. Inclusivity then becomes a matter of how the boundaries of expertise are drawn. In this article I examine the nature of these boundaries and the implications they have for inclusivity and credibility as revealed through the talk pages produced and sources used by a particular subset of Wikipedia's creators-those involved in writing articles on the topic of Philippine history.