I decided that while discussing the ideas of internet censorship and credibility I would use a somewhat new but widely used resource for information on the internet that can be considered controversial as well; Wikipedia.com. According to Wikipedia internet censorship “is control or suppression of material an individual can publish or access on the internet.” Wikipedia continues to say that “total censorship of information on the internet, however, is very difficult (or impossible) to achieve due to the underlying distributed technology of the internet. The legal issues are similar to offline censorship.” What is interesting to consider is how much of Wikipedia is censored on each search and how much of what other people contribute is chosen to be removed or included? Wikipedia also defines credibility as “is the believability of a statement, action, or source, and the propensity of the observer to believe that statement…in public speaking Aristotle consider the credibility of the speaker, her character, to be one of the forms of proof.” Wikipedia continues to discuss credibility in response to the recent rise in internet activity and usage especially for research. Credibility online has become an important topic since 1999, as the web is increasingly an information resource. The Persuasive Technology Lab at Stanford University has studied web credibility and outlined the principal components of online credibility and a general theory called Prominence-Interpretation Theory. This theory applies generally to credibility assessments. According to the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics, professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility (Wikipedia, Credibility). I find it ironic that a source on the web for massive amounts of information is seen defining credibility, when some might even argue that it is not is even a credible source for information itself. Granted, it is an easy way to find information quickly and efficiently, like I have here…but can it be argued as a credible source for research in the academic and professional world? I think that credibility often lies in the eyes or the hands of the writer and whether or not it is credible to you and your readers?
January 18, 2007
8 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Wikipedia is such an interesting example of both censorship and credibility in that although most of the definitions on Wikipedia are user generated, a lot of college students that I know use Wikipedia as a source to get their research started on projects. (I also used a Wikipedia definition for my blog post as well.) In terms of censorship, I am very curious to know who is auditing and “censoring” the user posts/add-ons in Wikipedia…
Comment by clwong — January 18, 2007 @ 7:41 pm
It is interesting that you decided to use wikipedia as a source of defining internet censorship. Wikipedia is one of the websites that I find, quite often frowned upon in academic research. Although most information posted on wikipedia seems credible, we often choose to believe that all information posted is true. Also, there is no doubt in my mind that even user based websites such as wikipedia is being heavily censored.
Comment by yjk85 — January 18, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
I think you are absolutely right. When it comes to credibility there is no easy way of figuring it out. So the credibility of something published on the net will be the responsibility of the writer. However, it is also the readers responsibility to determine exactly how they will interpret this information.
Internet censorship is a difficult thing to do, not to mention a complete invasion of privacy. I wonder just how much censorship actually takes place in places like China, where Internet censorship is very prevalent. You said that complete censorship would be nearly impossible, however, I wonder how far a government could go? It is very interesting that some censorship does take place, but we just don’t think it does. Wikipedia censors some of its things and yet most people don’t think of this as censorship.
Comment by jenny — January 18, 2007 @ 7:46 pm
Wikipedia has its ups and downs. Generally i dont go there for controversial stuff, i find that people can be disingenuous and that doesn’t help my research.
I was trying to look something up about the RIAA the other day and the entire entry read “The RIAA: Sucks”
I do find it helpful for things such as the history of chocolate, which i read the other day.
While its not censored by a single group, its an interesting social experiment to see what happens when the whole world can censor something. What gets through, what doesnt, and what is wrong.
Comment by Bradley — January 18, 2007 @ 7:46 pm
I actually never posted anything on Wikipedia, but it is something that I always use to get a start on when I have some research projects. At first, I also question its credibility, but after a while, I believe that contents on Wikipedia are at least credible enough to get a head start on projects.
My friend was posting on the Wikipedia about the iTeam, which is the instructor team for Catalyst Clients Service (people who teach students how to use certain programs here in UW for free), they were removed after about 3 weeks. Everything you posted on there will eventually be reviewed. It might show up for a bit, but they will continue reviewing it to see if the source is correct or not.
In any case, if you don’t like what you see on the content that Wikipedia is giving to you, you can always look down to their references and start your own research from there.
Comment by shogun16 — January 18, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
You bring up an interesting point about Internet censorship. It is so hard to censor everything on the Internet because people easily have access to publishing content. Also, who decides what is and isn’t credible? Who decides what goes and what doesn’t go on Wikipedia? As this blog proves, the site is a useful research tool to many people. It also shows us the thin line between what is considered credible. I guess we can only use our best judgment in finding sources of credibility, and even that can be a challenge.
Comment by rregina — January 18, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
I think your last sentence spurs an entirely new topic that should be discussed and that is if there should be any sort of guidelines for the information placed on the web. The idea that credibility lies in the hands of the writer would start a cycle that would not stop. Just as an example in this very blog a Wikipedia reference is used but then the very site is questioned for its credibility. I think that with so much back and forth on the subject it is one that will not find an answer soon, but I like your thoughts on it. I don’t know if guidelines would solve the problem and it makes it harder that the fact of if there even is a problem can be argued as well. It is a tough one.
Comment by Max Schuetze — January 18, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
Hello webmaster
I would like to share with you a link to your site
write me here preonrelt@mail.ru
Comment by Alexwebmaster — March 3, 2009 @ 2:01 pm