Encyclopedia?

I don't even remember when I first heard of Wikipedia, but in the last year it's become a part of every net-user's daily life. When you wonder about something, you go to Wikipedia. I've even got a shortcut to it on my phone's home page.

Why? Because it's reliable. Contrary to a certain spoof video (funny even though I disagree with it) the facts are almost always straight. For every user posting random information there is a hundred users correcting it and providing citations to support it. Wikipedia is famous because it's accurate, and it's accurate because it's famous. I've seen pages updated within literally minutes of something happening. Where else would you get this kind of information?

That's exactly my point. Without Wikipedia, where would we get our information? From a hard-copy encyclopedia that's incorrect the moment the editors are done with it? With the coming of the "Data Age", as I like to call it, internet access (and by extension access to information) is available almost anywhere. Are we leaving behind the encyclopedia? Is the process of validating information for print too slow for our needs?

Many blogs operate on the First Post principle. As soon as they catch wind of a rumour, they publish it on their blog. It's the internet. You can always go back and update it when you have more information, but the prestige of being the first publication to announce something makes it a risk worth taking. In a way Wikipedia is the same. As soon as something happens, a user thinks "I probably need to put that on the page" and off they go. If it's incorrect, another user (or the same user) will go and correct it. Because of this, you can go check how many people watched the last episode Lost, literally hours after broadcast.

So is Wikipedia the ultimate and only? No. Why is it the sole source of information on the internet, even maybe the world (because even newspapers now cite it as reference)? Because it provided the right service at exactly the right time. The problem with the internet was, yes there's all the information you will ever need, but are you going to sift through pages of search results pointing to news articles and rumour blogs to find what you're looking for? Wikipedia gives a single point of contact for information, which is then presented with definitions and basic information first, filtering into detail as you read.

As with everything, there is competition, other companies doing the same thing. Google launched Knol. It's essentially Wikipedia, but articles are based on topics and theses rather than defining a concept, and are supposed to be written by an expert in the field. There are some good articles, but when I want to know what films Stanley Kubrick(yes it's linked to the Wikipedia page) made, I'm not going to find it on Knol.

About now I usually make my closing argument. This time it's easy. To write this article, I opened Wikipedia 12 times to check references. That's all you need to know.

Also, if you're the type of person that gets involved in high science arguments over a few drink(happens every weekend), Wikipedia and a cell phone that can access it is an essential part of winning an argument.

Words:

Picture this time...

The Internet Is Not Real

When we negotiate our way around the internet, we come into contact with many pages and many people. They have no idea who it is that's viewing, and it doesn't really matter. So when you start interacting with others you don't really pay attention to what you're doing or saying, because it doesn't relate back to you in any way. When you comment on a blog like this one, the people on the other side see only your username and maybe a profile connected to it, with no information that comes back to you. Nothing stops you from simply never returning to that account.

You also communicate with the people you know in real life. Many of them you haven't seen in a while, or you may never see them. But you can make or break relationships through your actions. What you say on Facebook carries weight. If you're racist on the internet, it hurts people's feelings. It's fine if you air your opinions in a rational way and have an adult discussion about it, but lashing out at a specific demographic serves no purpose besides emotional injury and aggravation. Besides, I don't see how any mature, rational person can be racist. It's a counter-statement.

Your subconscious tells you the internet is something non-existent. It's just a cloud in the sky. So you don't think twice about speaking your mind. I've heard people say: "I didn't mean it that way! Come on! It's an e-mail for goodness sake. Don't take it so seriously."

That's the wrong approach, but sadly it's how people think.

We need to realise that the person on the other end is an actual human being, with feelings and opinions. Even if you've never met them, and never will, your words could impact their life. Just because it's the internet, doesn't mean it doesn't communicate.

Sorry for the depressing post. I'll be up to my usual ponderings next week.



Words:
"When the internet gets angry, it's an infinite source of amusement."
-Evil Avatar Radio, now In-Game Chat

Metal Is Not Evil

A story surfaced this morning of a kid going to his school and stabbing people with a sword. Links:
Mail & Guardian
News24

There are 2 things I want to protest in this:

1. "The boy had painted his face black and wore a black balaclava, resembling the drummer of the band Slipknot, said Krugersdorp councillor Alex Raubenheimer"

   Here's a picture of Joey Jordison wearing his signature mask. Now I don't want to be funny, but how does this resemble a black balaclava?

2. "He came here camouflaged as the guys from Slipknot. We know the wrong kind of music, and drugs have bad effects. Young people need to be informed of the effects of bad Satanic music," said Eksteen.

This is where my rant really starts...

How can people assume that because a guy listens to metal he's going to go around killing people? Slipknot isn't in any way connected to satanic material. There are bands that are, such as Black Symphony, but as far as I know Slipknot never made a point of being satanic.

Here's me, a 23-year-old guy. I've been listening to metal much heavier and scarier than Slipknot for essentially as long as I can remember. And I had trouble hitting people when I started doing kickboxing.

Dear Mr Eksteen, whoever you are, I can say that your school encourages satanism or somehow indoctrinates children to do drugs and kill other people. Why? Because I have no idea what's going on at your school, the same way you have no idea what goes on in metal because you simply don't care enough to get rid of your stupid idealistic prejudices and listen to a few songs. If you don't know what you're talking about please shut the fuck up.

I'm sick of people judging us for the music we enjoy. Metal makes you kill people exactly as much as RnB makes you fuck every living thing and Rap makes you pop a cap in a gangsta's ass. Get over yourself.

My question to you is: Isn't this simply another form of racial profiling?

PS, the only reason I'm posting this if because I couldn't find the talk-back feature on either of these stupid websites.