Wikipedia--Useful or Not?

After doing a little research on the controversial "encyclopedia" Wikipedia, I have discovered something more beneficial than the articles themselves. I used to search a topic on google knowing that Wikipedia would provide a concise and clear article--something upon which to grasp the subject-- and immediately understand much of the topic. From there, I would search more in-depth authoritative sources for a better understanding of controversies or opinions. For example, when studying the Watts Riots, Wikipedia was extremely useful in finding out the facts of the riots (how long it lasted, how much damage was done, etc.), but when it came down to researching the controversy, Proquest provided primary and authoritative sources through which I could gain a more comprehensive, well-rounded view of the issue.

However, after learning about the different functions of Wikipedia, the discussion tab has provided me with an entirely new method of research. I will expand my use of the website to reading these discussion threads, allowing me to see many sides of the issue. This will be especially helpful in finding counterarguments and arguments to discuss in my future papers. I do not think I will join in on the discussion unless there is something that stands out to me as a necessary correction--I am not one to often contribute my own opinions to discussion. I have, however, expanded my view of Wikipedia, and am more likely to rely on it for future research.

Acquisition of Knowledge

We have all been in the classroom when a student proceeds to correct a teacher, discrediting the "authoritative opinion" of which we believed to be true. Often times, the student is correct. I believe this to be a prime example of the tension between authoritative and communal acquisition of knowledge--common knowledge can prove as a stronger source of information. For example, in comparing the Encyclopedia Britannica with Wikipedia, both have error. In a study completed in 2005, Nature Journal chose articles from both sites in a wide range of topics and sent them to what it called "relevant" field experts for peer review. The experts then compared the competing articles--one from each site on a given topic--side by side, but were not told which article came from which site.

In the end, the journal found only eight errors, such as general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of those, four came from each site. They did, however, discover a series of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123. Traditional encyclopedias are based on the reputation of certain authors. These authors, though small in number, are highly interested and qualified to find good sources for their information, and are therefore expected to produce good quality articles - however, they are not immune to human error. Thus, tension arises between the authoritative (Britannica) and communal (Wikipedia) sources.

I believe that communal sources of information are more practical. They force people to read other perspectives and carefully consider a response, such as the discussion boards on Wikipedia. I find that authoritative sources can often be limiting, or represent only one side of an argument. By collecting information from many sources and compiling it in a database, we are allowing a further use of critical thinking skills and building upon our knowledge base.

Source: Terdiman, Daniel. "Study: Wikipedia as Accurate as Britannica - CNET News." Technology News - CNET News. Web. 22 Nov. 2011.

Korean Americans

I have chosen to write about Korean Americans for Assignment 4. I find it interesting that Korean Americans are not fully integrated into American Society in Los Angeles, the assimilation that has occurred appears to have caused more harm than good. However, you could look at this from two perspectives: 1) The Korean American attempt at assimilation has been undermined by the racism and tensions in Los Angeles, or 2) By not trying their hardest to assimilate (ex. Koreatown enclave), they have brought these racial tensions upon themselves, leading to events such as the 1992 Riots of South-Central LA.

According to Edward Park, in his article "Competing visions: Political formation of Korean Americans in Los Angeles," the 1992 violence created a new wave of "political activism" among Korean Americans, but it also divided them into two main groups. The liberals worked to connect with other minority groups in LA to fight against racial injustice, where as the conservatives highlighted law and order and ultimately favored the economic and social policies of the Republican Party. It essentially was the common story of liberal versus conservatives. The conservatives tended to emphasize the political disparities between Koreans and other minorities, specifically blacks and Hispanics.

I am interested in examining the different way that the Koreans have assimilated, as well as how they have avoided becoming an integrated part of American culture, and how it has affected the racial tensions that were exacerbated with the 1992 South Central LA riots.