Blogs vs Wikis

     The purpose of blogs and wikis are almost one in the same. Since the age of wireless and online technology, these two have become a hub of new and social media that allows an audience to hear or learn of the world in which they aren’t capable of doing alone. They do differ, however, and that difference makes the two platforms as different as apples and oranges.

     Starting off with blogs, they’re essentially a personal website on an individual’s thoughts and opinions, firsthand experiences, and observations. Blogs can be a treasure trove of useful information or even a simple rant on someone’s bad day.  With the emergence of the internet, the opportunity has allowed the public to consume specific and personal information at an incredibly efficient pace, and many have agreed that it has benefited the society in a tremendous way. Being a blogger allows your voice to be heard, and also allows one to play a great role in everyday operations to the public. Take a fashion blog of example. It plays two roles where it gives the public an opinion on what’s trending and in fashion, and also allows the public to respond with feedback as well as gain knowledge on what’s “in”. We can even simplify it more to consumers reading blogs that offer positive and negative feedback to a product/brand they’ve been thinking of buying.  From the article “Wal-Mart Tastemakers Write Unfiltered Blog”, Michael Barbaro states how Wal-Mart is now “…encouraging its merchants to speak frankly, even critically, about the products the chain carries.” It allows consumers to find the best product in the least amount of time.

     With wikis, information is gathered and unified together into one website by multiple users. It allows for people to work together in assembling a collection of factual information independently gathered to be as accurate as possible. Look at Wikipedia, one of the 10 most popular sites on the Web currently, for example.  It substitutes as a free encyclopedia of information, but as accurate and reliable as people may see it to be, it is still a collection of information based on the input of volunteers. Anyone is given the power to edit the content – to either improve the collection or defile it for self-amusement. As stated by Michael Snow, the chairman of the Wikimedia board, “There was a time probably when the community was more forgiving of things that were inaccurate or fudged in some fashion — whether simply misunderstood or an author had some ax to grind. There is less tolerance for that sort of problem now.” As useful as wikis are, they are not entirely based on accurate information or from credible authors.