Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.010732818 = product of:
  0.053664092 = sum of:
    0.053664092 = product of:
      0.107328184 = sum of:
        0.107328184 = weight(_text_:history in 4459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.107328184 = score(doc=4459,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20093648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04319373 = queryNorm
            0.5341399 = fieldWeight in 4459, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4459)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.008944015 = product of:
  0.044720072 = sum of:
    0.044720072 = product of:
      0.089440145 = sum of:
        0.089440145 = weight(_text_:history in 951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.089440145 = score(doc=951,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20093648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04319373 = queryNorm
            0.44511652 = fieldWeight in 951, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=951)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.0073027574 = product of:
  0.036513787 = sum of:
    0.036513787 = product of:
      0.07302757 = sum of:
        0.07302757 = weight(_text_:history in 3437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07302757 = score(doc=3437,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20093648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04319373 = queryNorm
            0.3634361 = fieldWeight in 3437, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3437)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This study evaluates how well the authors of Wikipedia history articles adhere to the site's policy of assuring verifiability through citations. It does so by examining the references and citations of a subset of country histories. The findings paint a dismal picture. Not only are many claims not verified through citations, those that are suffer from the choice of references used. Many of these are from only a few US government Websites or news media and few are to academic journal material. Given these results, one response would be to declare Wikipedia unsuitable for serious reference work. But another option emerges when we jettison technological determinism and look at Wikipedia as a product of a wider social context. Key to this context is a world in which information is bottled up as commodities requiring payment for access. Equally important is the problematic assumption that texts are undifferentiated bearers of knowledge. Those involved in instructional programs can draw attention to the social nature of texts to counter these assumptions and by so doing create an awareness for a new generation of Wikipedians and Wikipedia users of the need to evaluate texts (and hence citations) in light of the social context of their production and use.

0.0061965953 = product of:
  0.030982977 = sum of:
    0.030982977 = product of:
      0.061965954 = sum of:
        0.061965954 = weight(_text_:history in 1895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061965954 = score(doc=1895,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20093648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04319373 = queryNorm
            0.3083858 = fieldWeight in 1895, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1895)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to show how the library management of the Raffles Library and Museum (the former name of the National Library of Singapore) positioned the library in relation to the wider colonial society of which it was a part. More widely, the aim is to explore the role of libraries within a colonial setting. Design/methodology/approach - The paper takes the form of historical research using archival materials. Findings - The paper finds that the Raffles Library and Museum responded to the needs of two kinds of users: the potentially wayward colonist in need of "wholesome" recreation and the scientist/scholar involved in making Singapore a regional centre for the production of colonial knowledge. Originality/value - While knowledge-producing institutions such as botanical gardens, zoological parks, museums of natural and human history, as well as anthropological and geographical societies now feature prominently in discussions of British colonialism, the colonial library has been overlooked. This paper represents a start at bringing the colonial library into focus as an institutional node designed to sustain colonial endeavors.

0.0061965953 = product of:
  0.030982977 = sum of:
    0.030982977 = product of:
      0.061965954 = sum of:
        0.061965954 = weight(_text_:history in 391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061965954 = score(doc=391,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20093648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04319373 = queryNorm
            0.3083858 = fieldWeight in 391, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=391)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.