While Johns considers these ideas within the realm of the Early Modern period, I feel that today such concepts have direct impact to my functioning as a university student. Research papers are a classic method for proving the worth of a student. Since this is a blog, I feel no shame in describing how I have written my fair share and find them to be only partially useful. My abilities and intelligence can not be accurately represented through a single paper. 'Why not write more?' I am certain the professors would argue, yet each paper has a strict set of research rules. For example, Wikipedia is out, internet resources are almost always limited, and a minimum number of sources must be met. But why?
Basically, credit. Wikipedia is an excellent example of how credit plays an important role in today's written word. Wikipedia is an amazing resource, but is given to error since anyone with an internet connection can edit and change its contents. Surprisingly, unlike a majority of websites that are rendered useless through the purposeful placement of misinformation, Wikipedia is incredibly accurate and tests have shown that incorrect information deliberately placed is edited out rapidly. Despite this, Wikipedia is off-limits to research. It does, however, provide a great place to do preliminary fact-finding.
Credit seems to now be an issue no longer of accuracy, but economic benefit. Creators of artistic work, from video games to music, want to be compensated for their work, and credit must be maintained so as to create a value that consumers desire. Pirated music and videos today are often of high quality, with few errors. While yes there are mislabeled pieces and harmful files such as viruses and malware, accurate replication, due to available technology, is a moot point. As such, fixity, as addressed by Johns, is no longer as important today as credit.
I had no idea wikipedia was actually a very accurate source. However with your explanation that does make sense.
ReplyDeleteI really dislike how we can't use wikipedia too, because doesn't almost every website use different sources to make their own website? Wikipedia also has a sources list at the bottom too...I feel like it is quite accurate and other websites do not get checked out for accuracy I do not believe.
I think this is a great argument for wikipedia! YOU GO GIRL!
Just for future reference, I am male, but I still appreciate the comment!
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the way you laid out the ideas of fixity and credit. I also wanted to talk about my college experience pertaining these two terms. i too hve had the experience with teachers saying that you may absolutely not credit and source wikipedia because it is not reliable. I personally have always wondered if most professors realize how accurately updated and supervised wikipedia actually is today. Who's to say that a random website with your related information that has a publish date and publisher is anymore reliable and trustworthy than wikipedia. The same guy that wrote the "credible" source could have ben the same guy that wrote the wikipedia article. I think wikipedia is something that the collegiate level should re-evaluate as a credible source.
ReplyDeleteTalking about the reliability of Wikipedia makes me think about resources on the internet that we are allowed to use in college level writing. Basically we are allowed to use periodicals and articles from university libraries - that were originally printed material and have been scanned, and we are allowed to use web sites from government or university entities. Any commercial web sites are not considered credible because of probably bias information, and like you are saying wikipedia is out. If you think about it, our internet resources are rather limited.
ReplyDeleteI mixed up the comments on my blog haha! So sorry! I commented another girls on a different blog :) YOU GO GUY!
ReplyDelete