Critiquing new forms of web-based communication technology

The centre of yesterday's Guardian "G2" supplement asked the following highly credible question: Can you trust Wikipedia? The reason why I feel that it's a highly credible question relates to the plain fact that wikis, like blogs and podcasts, etc. are nearly all unregulated mediums of information, slowly, but surely, ebbing their way to mainstream acclaim.

According to one source in the article, some of its entries are a 'horrific embarrassment'. Whilst there is no reason to believe similar forms of web-based communication technology are awash with unreliable information, I sense that the future of such technologies depends on two things. First of all, those who use said technology must be sufficiently organized and ready to take action if traditional forms of media turn against their emerging counterparts. And second, users of new forms of web-based communication technology must be ready to adhere to a code of ethics that governs all such mediums, if they do not already. For example, perhaps a statement of whatever code of ethics each blogger subscribes to should be openly displayed on the blog itself.

Incidentally, apart from one minor abberation, Wikipedia stood up to criticism, although a much wider critique may have produced a different picture.

No comments: