James Gleick's article about the digitization of many of the world's greatest and most prized documents and artifacts is one that I find very interesting. The idea that almost any historical and/or literary document will soon be available at the click of a mouse is entirely exciting for me. I think that this digitization will only bring a higher value to knowledge, and in my opinion any amount of knowledge is more valuable than any artifact one can buy.
The fact that there are those out there who are opposed to this idea of a digital renaissance simply shows the ignorance of society. In order for human society to further itself and evolve as a whole is by the acquiring on information, and the applications of this and previously known information. Without the digitization of the world's great information, millions of people will continue to live in the dark. They will never really know where they came from, or why they do the things they do, or anything other than the obvious. The people who oppose the idea of the digitization of information are probably worried about the financial losses actual museums, libraries, and other establishments known for housing information will take, but the increase in information value is completely lost on these skeptics.
I personally find that digital researching can be just as time consuming and personally taxing as any research done in the stacks of a library. I also have found that there is a wider variety of information, ideas and counter concepts available to today's digital researchers, and this variety allows for a more concrete understanding of the ideas and information accessed. I think this digital renaissance has begun, and will only continue to move forward, and allow more and more people around the world to access any piece of information they can dream of at the touch of a finger, and I can't wait to see what happens next.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
A WikiWorld
Jimmy Wales, any way you look at it, is a technological and encyclopedic genius. Through his ideals of self-expression, and his experience in the stuffy world of academia Wales seems to be the perfect creator of such a controversial and yet reliable information site. The fact that Wales spent so many years and so much energy on his own education allows him the best insight into research gathering techniques, and an inside look to the lack of readily available, free information to the public.
Wales was able to create a world-wide revolution in the age old argument of "your truth or mine". Since the dawn of time, people have been arguing over everything and every fact that every came into existence. Wikipedia's self-editing function is both helpful and devastating to the quality of information found on the site. The fact that any person can correct, or change, anything in any article on the site is great when a user comes across an error in an entry, or is able to add useful information to a previously created article. The opposite is also true; any user can say anything they want, be it true or false, about any subject discussed on the site.
With these facts in mind, I have always felt slightly uneasy about relying on the information provided in Wikipedia articles. When at first researching a subject, I tend to veer away from Wikipedia articles because I have am warry of the source of the information. I do find, however, that many articles, or ideas presented in some articles, lend themselves to further research efforts in a more academic area. The main aspect of Wikipedia that makes me distrust its information is the fact that people, unfortunately, are opinionated, and many times, underinformed,this alone leads to petty wars over the internet, and can interfere with any sort of accurate information gathering.
Jimmy Wales created a new way of life for the current generation, and has forever changed the way in which people view encyclopedias and their accuracy.
Wales was able to create a world-wide revolution in the age old argument of "your truth or mine". Since the dawn of time, people have been arguing over everything and every fact that every came into existence. Wikipedia's self-editing function is both helpful and devastating to the quality of information found on the site. The fact that any person can correct, or change, anything in any article on the site is great when a user comes across an error in an entry, or is able to add useful information to a previously created article. The opposite is also true; any user can say anything they want, be it true or false, about any subject discussed on the site.
With these facts in mind, I have always felt slightly uneasy about relying on the information provided in Wikipedia articles. When at first researching a subject, I tend to veer away from Wikipedia articles because I have am warry of the source of the information. I do find, however, that many articles, or ideas presented in some articles, lend themselves to further research efforts in a more academic area. The main aspect of Wikipedia that makes me distrust its information is the fact that people, unfortunately, are opinionated, and many times, underinformed,this alone leads to petty wars over the internet, and can interfere with any sort of accurate information gathering.
Jimmy Wales created a new way of life for the current generation, and has forever changed the way in which people view encyclopedias and their accuracy.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Pygmalion's Conclusion
Bernard Shaw's wonderful drama, "Pygmalion", is a play that weaves such an intricate personal connection from one character to another that the reader is unknowingly drawn in from the very start. In the final two acts of this play, Shaw brings his tale of a poor, uneducated, common flower-girl and her transformation into a real lady of court thanks to the tedious training of Professor Higgins and the financial backing of Col. Pickering. In the end, the audience finally learns that Eliza, the flower-girl, does win the bet for Prof. Higgins, in that she tricked all the people at the ball into thinking that she was born into high society. This fact, however, does not serve as the climax of the play, as one would think. The ultimate climax is reached when Eliza realizes that Higgins does not truly care about her or her well being, because he so readily dismisses her and her future as no longer his concern now that his bet is won. At first, the reader might get the idea that Eliza is asking Higgins for his affectionate/romantic kindness, but we soon find that she just wants him to show that he has a heart, and has become as attached to her as a friend and companion as she has to him.
The fact that Eliza ends up marrying Freddy Eynsford Hill is both comical and fitting to me. I felt all along that Eliza would require a fanatical, unconditional love from the man she married, but the fact that she found it in timid, unassuming Freddy makes me laugh. Eliza is such a domineering and loud character that it makes perfect, and yet no sense that she falls for Freddy. It is almost too perfect, however, that Freddy and Eliza are able to get their flower shop up and running, and are finally able to make a profit from their dreams. These dreams would never have been reached if not for the support of Col. Pickering, again.
The fact that Eliza ends up marrying Freddy Eynsford Hill is both comical and fitting to me. I felt all along that Eliza would require a fanatical, unconditional love from the man she married, but the fact that she found it in timid, unassuming Freddy makes me laugh. Eliza is such a domineering and loud character that it makes perfect, and yet no sense that she falls for Freddy. It is almost too perfect, however, that Freddy and Eliza are able to get their flower shop up and running, and are finally able to make a profit from their dreams. These dreams would never have been reached if not for the support of Col. Pickering, again.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)