Collaborating are you?

Image by: geralt ( CC0 CC ) Over the span of the semester in this class, I got to experience a more in depth look as well as experience what it is like to work as a group to collaborate in projects that require a decent amount of cooperation between members of the group. Also learning about the different aspects of what it means to collaborate with other people for a cause. Whether it is a big collaboration or something small, it is important to know just what has to be done. It was also a great experience getting to try out different ways in which to collaborate with other people, such as us Wikipedia to further develop a topic that was slightly lacking. The weekly blog post felt was a great way for use to express ourselves as well as share what we have been learning while taking this course. Two blog post I had made that I felt were good were the post about toxicity in online gaming which was titled "Why you got to be so toxic?" and the blog post "Reddit, a collab...

Image by: LaMèreVeille ( CC BY-SA 4.0 ) When it comes to Wikipedia there is a noticeable gap between the gender that is mostly contributing to the post that are made and how there is a big disparity between the amount of information for a particular post will have. In the article " Critical Digital Praxis in Wikipedia: The Art + Feminism Edit-A-Thon " it states that studies have shown that about 83% of the people to contribute to the encyclopedia are male, while the other 13% are female. That alone can give an idea of how Wikipedia must look when it comes to the amount of contribution that is being contributed by the different genders,. Another state that was discussed is how you can see the disparity between topics such as if the topic revolved around teenagers. If you were to look up a topic about friendship bracelets you may only get a few lines or maybe paragraphs about it, while if you looked up something about baseball you would get very detailed information about i...

Image By: Wikipedia.Inc (CC BY-SA 3.0) This week as well as in the upcoming week, we are working with Wikipedia. We are looked at wiki post as well as editing a post that we felt needed some work. That being said, this made me think about just how much free reign people have to edit what they want on Wikipedia. A perfect example of this that was shown in class was from the Colbert Report. In this Steven Colbert goes onto Wikipedia and changes information about his own show as well encourages the viewers and audience to go onto Wikipedia and change the information about an elephant in Africa. This then lead to that page being frozen due to the influx of people that were trying to get onto Wikipedia in order to edit that page(.1). This makes me think about what exactly can you trust on Wikipedia, sure some things maybe facial and true. But, what stops people from putting completely false information up that people could believe is true? 1.  Colbert Report - Wikiality