I admire pursuits like wikipedia and it is truly miraculous that people have given out their "knowledge" so freely. That is my hope at least. I did not see anything anywhere under my "security blanket" of the emuonline site to "discuss" the "Hive" article so I guess this might be the place to do that. As far as "security blanket"(personally LOL, and I don't really use things like that but since, you, professor Krause did any how)(also I guess IMO is "in my opinion" since I didn't catch that any where either before??) Looking up things can make people confused though I think by relying on wikipedia, not that I am oppose to such a collaboration, maybe I might add something someday. After my master's I will feel like my opinion matters a little more, from an academic viewpoint at least. When I was researching articles (In English: a, an, the, some, and sometimes nothing or the "null article") for my grammar project last semester I came across a Korean language (my target students) wikipedia site that displayed 27 different words they listed as "particles",(http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Korean_particles) (the only closely related term to articles on the site) which would only complicate the already difficult task of teaching articles to foreign English Language Learners (ELLs). By clicking on any of these words which they list as "particles" you can clearly see that more often than not that would be something completely different in English such as "and" or "at". This is the inherent problem with colloborative works such as wikipedia but it nonetheless is an incrediably thought provoking and useful tool because if I am a truly dedicated student all this information could still be used to my advantage, I have not come across anything so far that gives a completely "wrong" (depending on how you interpret "(e)" for instance, if you know the IPA (international phonetical alphabet) or not.) translation/defintion.

Danielle-- this is a good comment, and can I make two suggestions about working with it? Why not put it on the article we're talking about, "The Hive?" Also, have you thought about maybe creating a page in this wiki, maybe off of "The Hive" piece or maybe off of another place on the site, where you talk about these issues? Maybe a page about how credible (or not) is wikipedia?

I found the "The Hive" very interesting and full of information that I have never really considered. I never thought about how the pages and search engines on the Internet started because my first experience with the it was some time in 1999. I was just facinated with what I saw but I did not really understand it.

As I read the article the part that really made me think was in the Common Knowledge section when a Wikipedian (Krzysztof Jasiutowicz) commented that the Internet could be described as a "global Wikipedia" without the end user editing facility. I think in a way I can understand how the Internet can be described that way. But honestly I have only been aware of Wikipedia for only a few years and I only learned last year that there were "Wikis" and that Wikipedia could be edited or added to by anyone. I just thought the sight had a strange name.

I think Jimmy Wales’ personality was a pre-cursor to his ideas related to web discussion in the form of wikipedia. He was described as a mild and patient person who didn’t like to fight. Wouldn’t you know that his idea of openness and acceptance would extend to the Internet collection of ideas on certain subjects? He wanted everyone’s ideas captured. That was the “neutral point of view” we read about. He wanted civil discussion, whether people agreed or not. “Truth” in wikiland is determined through community discussion and consensus. It is constantly renegotiated and redefined. The issue of tampering/hacking is not even feared by wikipedians. This hive-like discussion board is a wiki-community Utopia.

I think the You Tube time lapse videos are really interesting. It is almost like contracting a paper. But what came to mind was when an event happens all kinds of incorrect information comes out, rumors and it takes a while to get the story straight.

One common theme that appeared in several of the articles this week was that Wikipedia's strength that anyone can post and or edit may also be its weakness. I am not sure, but I can understand that it is not a primary source and I think it is a good place to start.

Based on the readings I think that Sanger's Citizendium is more suited to his personality and maybe what he wanted Wikipedia to be and I think that Wikipedia is what Wales wants it to be. I think that Wikipedia has a place in academia, but it is not as a primary source.

I found the comments to the article when "Wikipedia is the Assignment" were just as interesting as the article. I suppose I should not be surprised that instructors are incorporating Wikipedia into the classroom as an assignment rather than a source. As a student I am concerned with peer review, but Wikipedia is the world and that is very different. In the article, Martha Groom questioned if students are motivated to their best work when they know their work will be viewed by strangers. I know I am. Even in online discussions I really think about my post because everyone can read them and they don't necessarily go away.