Comments on: Wikipedia And The Death Of Archaeology http://holotone.net/2006/11/03/wikipedia-and-the-death-of-archaeology/ Thu, 08 Jan 2009 03:09:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.2 By: jody http://holotone.net/2006/11/03/wikipedia-and-the-death-of-archaeology/#comment-868 jody Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:53:22 +0000 http://holotone.net/2006/11/03/wikipedia-and-the-death-of-archaeology/#comment-868 Hmm. A thought-provoking article, to be sure. But the death of Archeology? I think not, Mr. Updegrove. But first: "its ability to provide a record of how we see ourselves, our heritage, our current events and our culture in real-time as those perceptions evolve." Correction: it provides a record of how people who own computers and use the internet and know how to edit Wikipedia see themselves, etc. The same holds with any historian (or anthropologist, sociologist, etc.)--no historian would be narrow-minded to think that an encyclopedia, online or not, democratically-edited or not, would ever provide a full or even accurate and partial snapshot of any given culture or historical moment. Shelf-bound encyclopedias contain the information that chosen people have themselves chosen to record. There's always gaps and holes, and there will always be gaps and holes in Wikipedia as well. But the idea to archive Wikipedia at regular intervals: brilliant. But this idea, this process, would hardly kill archeology as we know it now and/or how that discipline will operate in the future. Hmm. A thought-provoking article, to be sure. But the death of Archeology? I think not, Mr. Updegrove.

But first: “its ability to provide a record of how we see ourselves, our heritage, our current events and our culture in real-time as those perceptions evolve.” Correction: it provides a record of how people who own computers and use the internet and know how to edit Wikipedia see themselves, etc. The same holds with any historian (or anthropologist, sociologist, etc.)–no historian would be narrow-minded to think that an encyclopedia, online or not, democratically-edited or not, would ever provide a full or even accurate and partial snapshot of any given culture or historical moment. Shelf-bound encyclopedias contain the information that chosen people have themselves chosen to record. There’s always gaps and holes, and there will always be gaps and holes in Wikipedia as well.

But the idea to archive Wikipedia at regular intervals: brilliant. But this idea, this process, would hardly kill archeology as we know it now and/or how that discipline will operate in the future.

]]> By: Melissabee http://holotone.net/2006/11/03/wikipedia-and-the-death-of-archaeology/#comment-873 Melissabee Fri, 03 Nov 2006 19:53:44 +0000 http://holotone.net/2006/11/03/wikipedia-and-the-death-of-archaeology/#comment-873 If how we veiw ourselves is a lie, shouldn't someone inform us? If how we veiw ourselves is a lie, shouldn’t someone inform us?

]]> By: BigDogRMF http://holotone.net/2006/11/03/wikipedia-and-the-death-of-archaeology/#comment-911 BigDogRMF Sat, 04 Nov 2006 22:44:30 +0000 http://holotone.net/2006/11/03/wikipedia-and-the-death-of-archaeology/#comment-911 It's interesting that after thousands of years of recording ourselves and our thoughts only to view them as static and largely unchangeable (written in stone or carved in granite, so-to-speak), we are now recording and cataloging ourselves dynamically, changing by the moment. Also, it was usually the more educated or scholarly that made these observations. Now, the everyday man or woman can leave their mark on history. Usually, it was only the people who got caught in a glacier who could make that kind of mark. It’s interesting that after thousands of years of recording ourselves and our thoughts only to view them as static and largely unchangeable (written in stone or carved in granite, so-to-speak), we are now recording and cataloging ourselves dynamically, changing by the moment.
Also, it was usually the more educated or scholarly that made these observations. Now, the everyday man or woman can leave their mark on history. Usually, it was only the people who got caught in a glacier who could make that kind of mark.

]]>