Any who! I went on to change the "Uses and Gratifications Theory" page on Wikipedia because it approaches how people seek out media to satisfy specific needs.
Below you will see the section BEFORE any changes.
“===New Media Examples of UGT===
The application of New Media to the Uses and Gratifications Theory has been positive.<ref name="WestTurner392401"/> The introduction of the [[Internet]], [[social media]] and technological advances has provided another outlet for people to use and seek gratification through those sources. Based on the models developed by Katz, Blumler, Gurevitch and Lasswell, individuals can choose to seek out media in one outlet, all falling within the proscribed categories of need. The only difference now, is that the audience does not have to go to multiple media outlets to fulfill each of their needs. The [[Internet]] has created a digital library, allowing individuals to have access to all content from various mass medium outlets.”
Now below you will see the changes that I made to "New Media Examples of UGT" in bold.
“===New Media Examples of UGT===
The application of New Media to the Uses and Gratifications Theory has been positive.<ref name="WestTurner392401"/> The introduction of the [[Internet]], [[social media]] and technological advances has greatly impacted the efficiency of our communicative acts. Instead of having to have a long conversation with a client about his kids and home life, before asking a quick questions about an order, a brief and quick email can be sent to accomplish the same task. While this has made business interactions easier but it also harmed our personal interactions. The many technological changes have been both for better and worse.
I'm still flabbergasted by how easy it is to change information on a site that millions of people turn to for research and such.
I completely agree with you. But I also believe the old saying "with great power comes great responsibility". With the pressure of thousands and millions of fellow contributors and editors, I'm trusting most wikipedia writers in blind faith, that they generally seek to put out there the most accurate and truthful information because they'd care about the topics of their passion.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you bought that up! I too thought why would a site with many contributors and editors allow invalid information? I also did find it interesting how they trust people to correct any/all information that they feel the need to. However, I hope the editors are checking these pages frequently to ensure the credibility of these changes.
DeleteThis is why I never take the things I read on Wikipedia as completely accurate. I try to find corroborating information on other sites. As long as people understand that Wikipedia isn't necessarily factual, I don't see a problem with it. Sad thing is, I don't think a lot of people realize this about Wikipedia. It is something I make sure I talk about with each of my Freshman Seminar classes.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you make it a point to discuss it in your freshman seminar classes as it is crucial to know early in your college career. Freshman are just so vulnerable and are still in transition from high school so they need to understand that Wikipedia isn’t the most valuable site. I do trust that the many contributors would make the corrections; however, you can never be too sure. I prefer scholarly journals and secured websites to retrieve my information from. BUT- I won't lie I do find myself clicking on Wiki when I need a fast answer as it is the FIRST link when you "Google" something.
Delete