I see this another blossom on Internet, Wikipedia. Ranked the 37th most popular website on Internet by Alexa, the non-profit making online encyclopedia demonstrates a classic common property model in this information era. To me, the website is one of the major sources of research I get used to...Established since 2001, the portal has developed in a rapid pace to cover most of the research topics, granted itself a representative online library comparable to other charging competitors like Britannica. Of course, it is yet a search engine portal like Google or Yahoo. However, the spirit of open source and its application to knowledge database can be viewed as a great invention after we enter the Internet world a decade ago. Open source is a widely applied model for software development, and with an ideal utopian or communist philosophy, the sharing of information among people offers a perfect nation for large scale knowledge management. The effectiveness of sharing has already been revealed in previous cases like Napster or BT. There is an article on the latest Wharton e-newsletter talking the accuracy of shared information like Wikipedia. A few legal cases recently doubt the appropriateness of open source information. Indeed, the free content on the virtual world has always been something that needs special attention. When I see the recent development of yahoo hk on blog community, everyone can be a writer (content provider). The quality of web content really varies. The model of Wikipedia falls into an economics lesson about defining property right as well as enforcement of control to vandalism (externality). Wharton talks about the rating system for content providers similar to that of eBay or e-business portals. I, personally, do not think it would really work. All in all, it appears that an ordinary content provider to this portal needs not provide any identity or be liable to inaccurate information. The submission does not equal to a bonus or revenue generation. Perhaps this is just an evidence to show the discrepancy between utopia and reality. Something I agree much with Wharton is that a research should not rely solely on one source, especially when this source is content posted on Internet that lacks a sense of authorised recognition. But at the same time, isn't this a kind of enjoyment to browse on Internet? This is something which we would not have ever experienced within a library building before.
(Also refer to "Can Wikipedia Survive Its Own Success?" on http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/1361.cfm )
1 commentaire:
The legal implication of data management is studied by Drew Robb yesterday on Internet.com. An interesting question, "Can Data Ever Be Deleted?". He quoted from Joni Mitchell..."don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone." That's very true.
A few interesting data and estimations are listed on the article: -
1. As per Fred Moore of Horison Information Strategies, compliant records data is presently estimated to grow over 60% annually, and this is a great potential/burden to data management industry.
2. Strict (or we should regard these something difficult to comply with) legal requirements under the Sarbanes-Oxley act, 21 CFR Part II, HIPAA and SEC 17a-4.
3. The cost to maintain a lawful data management. It is estimated that the management cost according to the legal requirement could cost 5% of the total IT budget.
4. Archive technology & management (I would add that a very traditional way for companies at this point of time is to store simply most, if not all, data, be it useful or not, duplicated or redundant. Indeed, an effective management to retrieve data would be much important and meaningful)
5. The article pinpoints the importance to manage data from the end-users. Again, it's a shared effort to sustain an optimal storage status. It's more the company philosophy and the workflow manner that determine the quality of storage management.
(also refer to http://www.internetnews.com/storage/article.php
/3576831)
Enregistrer un commentaire