![]() ![]() The essays, interviews and artworks brought together in this reader form part of the overarching Critical Point of View research initiative, which began with a conference in Bangalore (January 2010), followed by events in Amsterdam (March 2010) and Leipzig (September 2010). Critical Point of View moves beyond unflagging praise, well-worn facts, and questions about its reliability and accuracy, to unveil the complex, messy, and controversial realities of a distributed knowledge platform. The encyclopedia’s rapid rise, novel organization, and freely offered content have been marveled at and denounced by a host of commentators. While this stage solved some of the problems, we freely admit that the results are far from perfect.įor millions of internet users around the globe, the search for new knowledge begins with Wikipedia. Even this adjustment was not enough to properly assign some categories, so we applied a second keyword analysis to find UDC main class keywords in Wikipedia categories. A keyword search in the UDC database clarified the position of some ambiguous categories but required manual adjustment. To draw attention to the resulting ambiguity and problems of such translations, we have demonstrated that a simple approach based on domain knowledge and background created highly controversial ‘left-over’ categories. Secondly, the differences in the structure and distribution of both systems add new problems to this process. In this study, we have shown that a simple mapping between Wikipedia and UDC category structure is problematic, firstly due to the nature of the act of classification itself. ![]() UDC, on the other hand, is a classic example of a knowledge order designed and updated by defined expert groups. Wikipedia is often referred to as the best example of collective knowledge creation, folksonomies, and the wisdom of the crowds.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |