~Extra Credit~

What did wiki software allow Web users to do that the Mosaic browser did not?

The wiki software allowed web users to edit wiki pages, while those who used the Mosaic browser could not do this. 

What do blogs and wikis have in common?

Blogs and wikis both allow people to add their own information to a website. 

What problem did a young Jimmy Wales find with the World Book Encyclopedia?

Jimmy Wales found that the World Book Encyclopedia didn't contain a lot of information that it should have, but it can't because the book can't just be updated automatically. 

How was Jimmy Wales inspired by the World Book Encyclopedia to create Wikipedia?

Jimmy Wales was inspired by the Encyclopedia to create Wikipedia because Wikipedia is a website that can be updated to contain new information that old encyclopedias can't have. 

How have encyclopedias inspired you in your own life?

Encyclopedias have inspired me in my own life to find more information about certain topics that I may have never heard about beforehand. 

Why did Nupedia fail?

Nupedia failed because it was very stressful to Wales, and he had only created a small amount of articles in a year, making it fairly useless. 

How did wiki software change the ideas behind Nupedia?

The wiki software changed the ideas behind Nupedia because it would allow the general public to edit and add their own information, which would speed up the amount of information on the website that is created. 

What is “crowdsourcing?”

Crowdsourcing is when somebody obtains information by enlisting services on a number of people found usually on the internet. 

What do you think about the concept of “any fool in the world” being able to write articles for Wikipedia?

I think that this concept would be a little risky, because that means that anybody could put any false information that they feel like putting onto a website. I think that this would only cause the information to be very disorganized and false. 

Do agree with the idea that “total idiots” could edit Wikipedia and of that being a good thing? Explain.

I agree somewhat that "total idiots" could edit Wikipedia in a positive way because some of these people might add factual information, but there is still a very high risk of false information being added on purpose (or accidentally). 

Why do you think Wikipedia grew so fast and became so popular in such a short amount of time?

I think that Wikipedia probably grew so fast and became so popular because editing information on a public website would be something entirely knew and interesting to many internet users. 

Do you believe Sanger’s elitist attitude was a good thing or a bad thing for Wikipedia?

I think that Sanger's elitist attitude was a bad thing for Wikipedia because it generally received criticism, and the general public enjoys being able to edit articles. 

What did you learn from the anecdote about the Wikipedia article on Einstein going to Albania for a passport in 1935?

I learned that while some people may be trying to post false information onto Wikipedia, there is actually even more people trying to keep the information factual, and that some people may fight to have their information kept on the Wikipedia page. 

Explain this quote from the article: “I can’t imagine who could have written such detailed guidelines other than a bunch of people working together...It’s common in Wikipedia that we’ll come to a solution that’s really well thought out because so many minds have had a crack at improving it.”

This quote means that even though the people who are writing Wikipedia articles are general people, it still comes out very well written because there are so many people working together to add and fix information in order to improve it. 

The author of the article states that Wikipedia “grew organically.” What does he mean by that?

By this, he means that the rules of Wikipedia came naturally and was created by its users, and that there was nobody who just suddenly set the rules for the website. 

How has Wikipedia “been the greatest collaborative knowledge project in history?” 

Wikipedia has "been the greatest collaborative knowledge project in history" because it has allowed so many people to work together to bring the correct information to the website. 

Based on your own opinion and experience with Wikipedia, do you agree with the above statement or disagree with it? Explain.

I agree with this statement, because it really is many people from all over the world working together on some of the same topics. This is a great collaborative project because many of the articles actually end up being successful and filled with correct information. 

What does the author mean by “wiki-crack?”

The author means by this that posting new information on Wikipedia will make a person become excited, seeing that their information is being published so easily. 

Based on the article, do you believe Wikipedia is a reliable source of information?

Based on the article, I believe that Wikipedia is mostly reliable, because most of the information on the pages contain reliable sources, but it isn't completely reliable because people can still edit in false information if they wanted to, though this false information probably wouldn't last on the page for very long. 

Do you believe its possible for a 16-year-old from New Jersey to write “insightful” Wikipedia articles?

Yes, it is possible for that to happen, because some people are just able to write very well from a young age. 

How do you feel about basing your own research on something a 16-year-old wrote on Wikipedia?

I would feel fine with it, as long as I knew that the information that this person wrote is completely correct, and if I knew that the person has a very high level of education for their age. 

What does Jimmy Wales mean by this mission statement: “Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge?”

Jimmy Wales means that Wikipedia really is a fantastic thing because everybody who has internet access is able to see what people from all over the world has come together to say about a certain topic. 

Do you agree or disagree with this mission statement?

I agree mostly with this statement because it is allowing people to access the knowledge of others, but I don't agree completely because not ever person on the planet is given this access, because not everybody in the world has a computer or internet access. 

Do you think Wikipedia has succeeded in its mission?

I think that Wikipedia has succeeded in its mission since so many people use it today, and many people rely on it in order to find information. 

Do you agree or disagree that ordinary people, people without degrees, can “be part of the process of creating and distributing knowledge?” 

I agree with this, because everyone should have the freedom to say what they want about a topic, no matter how much education you have gotten. 

Based on your reading of the article, would you yourself use Wikipedia for your academic research?

I would not use an actual Wikipedia article for my academic research, but I would use one of the sources that are at the bottom of the Wikipedia articles as long as this source is reputable. 

Would you yourself like to write and/or edit Wikipedia articles in order to be “a part of the process of creating and distributing knowledge?” Why or why not?

I would enjoy writing and editing Wikipedia articles in order to be part of this process, because I find it very interesting that anybody can just post any information that they want. If I ever saw a piece of information that I saw wasn't true or if I saw something that needed to be elaborated on, I would want to edit the Wikipedia article.