Blogs and wikis have many similarities and because of this it is sometimes hard to see what the differences are. One similarity of blogs and wikis are that they allow people to communicate with others over the internet. They are also both dynamic web pages which means that they are constantly being changed and updated. Because blogs and wikis could be created by anyone the information on these medias are sometimes inaccurate.
Aside from the many similarities blogs and wikis also have many differences. One difference between blogs and wikis is that the wikis do not include the source of the information. The is important because we would want to see if the information is accurate. With blogs you could see the information about the person who is posting the information. Another difference is that with blogs you have more control over the information you post but with wikis the information you post could be changed by another person.
In today's world where the internet could connect everybody together the importance of convergence is great especially in the business environment. In today's business world companies are sending their employees all over the world to do business and the need to communicate back and forth is crucial. So the use of new media technology like blogs and wikis become very handy because it allows companies to communicate with each other effectively.
Though wikis can be used to collaborate with others I believe that blogs are a more effective media for communicating to specific group of people. The reason is because wikis can be edited by anyone and this isn't good for very important information. Also blogs allow other to give feedback on the bloggers' opinions which is important when a group of people are collaborating.
I can't thing of a new use for the wiki that has not been done yet but could think of an improvement. An improvement for the wiki is that it should not allow anybody to put an inaccurate information on the wiki. Like the article in the NY Times, Wikipedia to Limit Changes to Articles on People, said the wiki should be more dependable source of information.
Tempat Jasa Pembuatan Jaket Secara Online
6 years ago
It's true that with a wiki it is usually impossible to know who posted the information so the accuracy is questionable. Perhaps some wikis can be created that only allow scholars and experts to post to them. The way to insure the sources are credible would be to have people who edit these wikis to enter some sort of license number that requires approval. The problem with that is approval may not be fast and certain information cannot be backed up by some sort of certificate or license. For example, it is a lot easier to check if a person is actually a doctor than it is to check if a person is actually a cook, historian, etc.
ReplyDeleteYou said you think blogs are more efficient: keep in mind that a blog might contain outdated information because only one person edits it. With many people contributing to wikis, there is a more likely chance that the information is up to date. Also, even though you know who is writing a blog(well all you know is what that person shared), it doesn't mean their information is credible. Blogs for the most part are opinions about facts, not facts. Wikis tend to contain only objective information which would make wikis a better source than blogs.