When Will Smith hit theatres last year in I Am Legend, everyone finally knew the name of the Richard Matheson's brilliant novel. Of course, this wasn't the first time the book had been adapted to the silver screen. That happened way back in 1964 with a budget horror film called The Last Man on Earth.
As a fan of the original novel, it's hard to watch this film without judging it in relation to both the novel and the two later adaptations of said novel (The Omega Man [1971] and I Am Legend [2007]). So this review will end up touching not only on the film itself, but on what it has spawned.
But let's start out small, and focus on the film in isolation.
Time has not been kind to The Last Man on Earth. The film relies heavily on voice-over, and is chock full of less than stellar acting. This is probably at least partially because of the low budget, and because over time acting styles have changed and evolved; gradually moving further and further from their theatrical roots. Certain scenes are still accomplished well, given the budget, but overall the lack of cash and the age of the film seep out of the screen. So as a stand-alone product it is aged, and really not that good. Not really worth watching 40 odd years later.
However, as any connoisseur of the zombie genre could tell you, this film, at times, bears a striking resemblance to George A. Romero's classic, Night of the Living Dead. The influence is clear from the first time you see the vampire creatures in The Last Man on Earth, who stumble around with stiff-limbs and try desperately to break into the titular character's barricaded home. What's sad though, is that while both Night of the Living Dead and the novel I am Legend are phenomenal, The Last Man on Earth fails to live up to either its source material, or its spiritual successor.
Additionally, the film makes certain changes from the original novel. A prime example is changing the titular character from an everyman with little to no knowledge of the cause of or possible cure for vampirism, into a scientist who works on curing the infection. This is a change which has been carried over into later adaptations of the novel, making me wonder whether they're true adaptations of the novel, or just adaptations of this film.
A big change from the original novel was the ending, and although this is the closest yet to the original ending it is, in my opinion, still not nearly as effective. The later adaptations have endings which deviate further and further from the original, growing less effective with each step. And that is so very unfortunate. I still get chills thinking about the ending in the novel. And not once has a film adaptation used that ending, or elicited the same reaction from me.
So what are my feelings on the film? In a vacuum, I'd say it's not worth watching. In relation to the other film adaptations of I am Legend, I dislike the changes it made to the original work. Yet I am grateful for the influence The Last Man on Earth had on Night of the Living Dead; a film which is often credited with the creation of the zombie genre.
The final verdict? 1/3 - Don't watch it. But I'll give it a conditional 2/3 for people interested in the zombie genre, or fans of the original novel. For you, this film won't be good, but it will be interesting.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
A Word on Ratings
I decided, just a moment ago, that I'm going to start including ratings in my reviews. Originally, I didn't want to do this because I feel that assigning a numerical value to show how good something is is arbitrary and generally innacurate. Especially when a perfect score can be given to a game which is not perfect. Good, but not perfect. There are two things listed under "The Bad", and neither of those things is "So bad, it's good". So it's not perfect. But 10/10 is. And that's just damn confusing.
But I digress.
The rating system I'm going to include will be as follows:
1/3 - Don't watch it.
2/3 - Watch it... eventually. Don't go out of your way, but if you've got nothing better to do or it's on television, go for it.
3/3 - Watch it. Watch it now. Drop what you're doing and go. Seriously.
I'm going to go back and tack one of these on to the end of my earlier reviews. Basically, this is just to clarify my final word at the end of the reviews. A simple number to tell you whether you should watch it or not.
Also, it makes it seem more like a real review when you assign an arbitrary number to it.
But I digress.
The rating system I'm going to include will be as follows:
1/3 - Don't watch it.
2/3 - Watch it... eventually. Don't go out of your way, but if you've got nothing better to do or it's on television, go for it.
3/3 - Watch it. Watch it now. Drop what you're doing and go. Seriously.
I'm going to go back and tack one of these on to the end of my earlier reviews. Basically, this is just to clarify my final word at the end of the reviews. A simple number to tell you whether you should watch it or not.
Also, it makes it seem more like a real review when you assign an arbitrary number to it.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Mini-series: The Andromeda Strain
Having never read the book upon which The Andromeda Strain (2008) is based, I feel somewhat unqualified to review it. And a cursory examination of the relevant wikipedia articles shows that the mini-series was unfaithful to the source material. To some, that's more than enough reason to not watch. Other people might need more reason. That's why I'm here.
The Andromeda Strain (2008) wasn't bad. The concept of the virus was frightening, both in how it killed and in its lethal efficiency. The cast was able and communicated the terror of the situation well. The special effects were not amazing, but they were still good. High production values all around. But it was never spectacular. There's nothing here to complain about, but nothing that I felt really deserved special mention; except, as I said above, the cast's communication of fear.
So what does that leave us with? The series was fairly slow paced, although I never felt bored. I thought there was enough action throughout to keep things interesting. Then again, I really enjoyed The Thin Red Line, which is commonly thought to be too long, and too boring. I also genuinely enjoy Scrabble. So maybe I'm the freak, and everyone else was snoring by Act Two.
What I really had a problem with though was the message. Now this may have been present in the original novel (although I doubt it, based on the plot summary), but if it is, it would annoy me there as much as it does here. As far as I could tell, the message of the film was:
A) Technology and science are good, but not that good.
In response, technology and science were the only reason anyone survived this series. So although they are bashed for causing damage, the fact that they saved the day is completely ignored. Instead the filmmakers wanted us to know:
B) The environment is really important.
Which it is, except they took it a step further and said:
C) We should never drive anything to extinction in the pursuit of the advancement of technology and our own well being because it might randomly become useful sometime down the line and we must be prepared for literally everything.
Which is just crazy. Insane, bouncing-off-the-walls-of-your-rubber-room crazy. I don't know when or how that point of view started to make sense, but it's just crazy. Should we clear-cut rainforests? No, because we need trees so we can breath. Should we preserve every type of tree in every type of forest because maybe the foliage of one of those trees is magical, and would be the prefect fallout shelter from a new type of bomb, which hasn't been discovered yet, but if it is discovered and then used to attack us we would be without protection if this one type of magical tree is lost forever?
Whatever happened to survival of the fittest? We can't preserve every part of every environment because that's just not the way the world works. I know PETA and animal rights activists everywhere disagree, but if you're an animal which only eats one thing, which grows in only one place in the world, and doesn't even really grow there, I'm not going to feel too sorry for you when you go extinct. No, I don't care if you're cute. Sink or swim. Adapt to new situations, or get left behind. We can't pamper and protect everything, and it's crazy and narcisistic to think that we can.
Of course, you may disagree, and in that case, the message of the mini-series wouldn't bother you at all. I disagree with it though, and it bothered me. It's not necessarily a problem with the show, and I'm not going to go any further into why I disagree with it (I've already gone too far into it for this review), but it stiffled my enjoyment.
Oh and we can't forget:
D) Oh and the government is really clever and good at conspiracies and also incredibly evil (but it's not the president's fault).
Which is kind of old-hat these days. Also not in the original novel. I understand it's inclusion as a sub-plot, and it was kind of bad-ass to watch, except I felt it was unnecessary. Or rather, that it would have been much more at home in The X-Files.
So ultimately, what would I say? Watch it if it's on and you've got nothing better to do. But I wouldn't go out of my way to watch it.
2/3
The Andromeda Strain (2008) wasn't bad. The concept of the virus was frightening, both in how it killed and in its lethal efficiency. The cast was able and communicated the terror of the situation well. The special effects were not amazing, but they were still good. High production values all around. But it was never spectacular. There's nothing here to complain about, but nothing that I felt really deserved special mention; except, as I said above, the cast's communication of fear.
So what does that leave us with? The series was fairly slow paced, although I never felt bored. I thought there was enough action throughout to keep things interesting. Then again, I really enjoyed The Thin Red Line, which is commonly thought to be too long, and too boring. I also genuinely enjoy Scrabble. So maybe I'm the freak, and everyone else was snoring by Act Two.
What I really had a problem with though was the message. Now this may have been present in the original novel (although I doubt it, based on the plot summary), but if it is, it would annoy me there as much as it does here. As far as I could tell, the message of the film was:
A) Technology and science are good, but not that good.
In response, technology and science were the only reason anyone survived this series. So although they are bashed for causing damage, the fact that they saved the day is completely ignored. Instead the filmmakers wanted us to know:
B) The environment is really important.
Which it is, except they took it a step further and said:
C) We should never drive anything to extinction in the pursuit of the advancement of technology and our own well being because it might randomly become useful sometime down the line and we must be prepared for literally everything.
Which is just crazy. Insane, bouncing-off-the-walls-of-your-rubber-room crazy. I don't know when or how that point of view started to make sense, but it's just crazy. Should we clear-cut rainforests? No, because we need trees so we can breath. Should we preserve every type of tree in every type of forest because maybe the foliage of one of those trees is magical, and would be the prefect fallout shelter from a new type of bomb, which hasn't been discovered yet, but if it is discovered and then used to attack us we would be without protection if this one type of magical tree is lost forever?
Whatever happened to survival of the fittest? We can't preserve every part of every environment because that's just not the way the world works. I know PETA and animal rights activists everywhere disagree, but if you're an animal which only eats one thing, which grows in only one place in the world, and doesn't even really grow there, I'm not going to feel too sorry for you when you go extinct. No, I don't care if you're cute. Sink or swim. Adapt to new situations, or get left behind. We can't pamper and protect everything, and it's crazy and narcisistic to think that we can.
Of course, you may disagree, and in that case, the message of the mini-series wouldn't bother you at all. I disagree with it though, and it bothered me. It's not necessarily a problem with the show, and I'm not going to go any further into why I disagree with it (I've already gone too far into it for this review), but it stiffled my enjoyment.
Oh and we can't forget:
D) Oh and the government is really clever and good at conspiracies and also incredibly evil (but it's not the president's fault).
Which is kind of old-hat these days. Also not in the original novel. I understand it's inclusion as a sub-plot, and it was kind of bad-ass to watch, except I felt it was unnecessary. Or rather, that it would have been much more at home in The X-Files.
So ultimately, what would I say? Watch it if it's on and you've got nothing better to do. But I wouldn't go out of my way to watch it.
2/3
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Buy Stars, Sell Movies
I was just recently directed to the Hollywood Stock Exchange, which is pretty much what it sounds like. No real money trades hands, but you get to buy up stars and movies and earn or lose play money depending on the success or failure of your properties.
For example, yesterday I made just over $8,000 on Terminator 4, and lost $2,500 on Aaron Eckhart. It's an interesting premise, and has been well executed by the people in charge of the site.
As a liberal arts student with next to no understanding of the real stock market, I can't really compare the fiction to the fact, but that doesn't make the Hollywood Stock Exchange any less fun. And that's really what matters with a time waster like this one. You get to predict whether a movie will be successful or not and place play money bets on it.
You think the new Indiana Jones is over-rated? Short it, and earn money when it bombs. Think Brad Pitt sucks? Bet against him. Waiting for Tom Cruise's career to make a come back? Buy him up. You can finally put (play)money where your mouth is, and see how right (or wrong) you really are when it comes to movies.
I feel like there's more to say, but I can't for the life of me figure out what it is. It's a simple premise and it's a fun way to kill time. That's it. That's all.
Oh, and if you do decide to sign up, tell them imceachern sent you.
For example, yesterday I made just over $8,000 on Terminator 4, and lost $2,500 on Aaron Eckhart. It's an interesting premise, and has been well executed by the people in charge of the site.
As a liberal arts student with next to no understanding of the real stock market, I can't really compare the fiction to the fact, but that doesn't make the Hollywood Stock Exchange any less fun. And that's really what matters with a time waster like this one. You get to predict whether a movie will be successful or not and place play money bets on it.
You think the new Indiana Jones is over-rated? Short it, and earn money when it bombs. Think Brad Pitt sucks? Bet against him. Waiting for Tom Cruise's career to make a come back? Buy him up. You can finally put (play)money where your mouth is, and see how right (or wrong) you really are when it comes to movies.
I feel like there's more to say, but I can't for the life of me figure out what it is. It's a simple premise and it's a fun way to kill time. That's it. That's all.
Oh, and if you do decide to sign up, tell them imceachern sent you.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
A Series of Identical Cubes
So just over a decade late I finally sat down and watched Cube. As someone who has always had an interest in horror films, Cube has spent a long time on my list of movies to watch, as the supposed pinnacle of Canadian Horror film-making. Was it worth the decade long wait? No. But it was still a pretty good movie.
Now I have a long list of gripes with this movie, but before I start going through those it's important that I make something clear. I enjoyed this movie. It's good. I would recommend you see it. However, it's not perfect. And, in my opinion, it could have been a lot better.
The other thing the reader should keep in mind is that I was not paying close attention to the math. A quick search of the internet reveals that there are numerous mistakes in the math presented in the film, which strikes me as incredibly sloppy; especially considering the importance of the math in the context of the film. Doubly so when some of the mistakes would have been life-threatening (if my understanding is correct). Of course, at the time this didn't bother me, because I was paying attention to the math in Cube in much the same way one pays attention to the science in Star Trek; as long as the actors make it sound plausible, you suspend your disbelief.
My other major complaint with Cube was with the way it was shot. Instantly recognizable as a Canadian film from the '90s, I found the film lacked visual flair. Not in the contents of the shots, but in the way those shots were... well... shot. Although uniquely Canadian, I never felt a sense of claustrophobia from the framing of the action. And perhaps that was intentional. Perhaps the director wanted to convey the hugeness of the overall structure, instead of the confinement of the individual rooms. If that was the case, mission accomplished. Regardless, I was disappointed by this, not so much while watching the film, but afterwards. I feel that a heightened sense of claustrophobia would have really increased the tension of the film.
I was also somewhat disappointed with the performances, specifically that of Maurice Dean Wint who played Quentin. Disappointed isn't quite the right word. I thought the performances were solid, but a little too close to over-the-top for comfort. Which is to say, they worked, but just barely. I found my suspension of belief faded every now and then, but given how far fetched the movie is to begin with, it wasn't stretched to the breaking point.
But enough nit-picking. The movie is good. It's tense, it's tightly scripted (ignoring the math stuff mentioned above), and most of all it's original. It's also a good Canadian film, which I can't help but feel a little pride over. The special effects are obvious, but work (especially considering the film's age). And the most important thing of all, the film comments on humanity and society. This, to me, is a cornerstone of good horror. Bad horror is hollow gore. Good horror has a message. And Cube is pleasantly pessimistic about human nature in its message. Perhaps a little heavy handed at times, but as I've said time and again, it worked.
And I guess, for all my complaining, the thing about Cube is that it does work. Every problem I've stated above is overshadowed by the fact that the movie as a whole successfully brought me in and kept me interested and entertained for the duration. And that, I would argue, is the most important part of any film.
So the final verdict? Watch it. Don't drop everything you're doing to watch it now. But put it on your list. And when you're in the mood for a tight, dark, suspense film, pick Cube up and enjoy.
2/3
Now I have a long list of gripes with this movie, but before I start going through those it's important that I make something clear. I enjoyed this movie. It's good. I would recommend you see it. However, it's not perfect. And, in my opinion, it could have been a lot better.
The other thing the reader should keep in mind is that I was not paying close attention to the math. A quick search of the internet reveals that there are numerous mistakes in the math presented in the film, which strikes me as incredibly sloppy; especially considering the importance of the math in the context of the film. Doubly so when some of the mistakes would have been life-threatening (if my understanding is correct). Of course, at the time this didn't bother me, because I was paying attention to the math in Cube in much the same way one pays attention to the science in Star Trek; as long as the actors make it sound plausible, you suspend your disbelief.
My other major complaint with Cube was with the way it was shot. Instantly recognizable as a Canadian film from the '90s, I found the film lacked visual flair. Not in the contents of the shots, but in the way those shots were... well... shot. Although uniquely Canadian, I never felt a sense of claustrophobia from the framing of the action. And perhaps that was intentional. Perhaps the director wanted to convey the hugeness of the overall structure, instead of the confinement of the individual rooms. If that was the case, mission accomplished. Regardless, I was disappointed by this, not so much while watching the film, but afterwards. I feel that a heightened sense of claustrophobia would have really increased the tension of the film.
I was also somewhat disappointed with the performances, specifically that of Maurice Dean Wint who played Quentin. Disappointed isn't quite the right word. I thought the performances were solid, but a little too close to over-the-top for comfort. Which is to say, they worked, but just barely. I found my suspension of belief faded every now and then, but given how far fetched the movie is to begin with, it wasn't stretched to the breaking point.
But enough nit-picking. The movie is good. It's tense, it's tightly scripted (ignoring the math stuff mentioned above), and most of all it's original. It's also a good Canadian film, which I can't help but feel a little pride over. The special effects are obvious, but work (especially considering the film's age). And the most important thing of all, the film comments on humanity and society. This, to me, is a cornerstone of good horror. Bad horror is hollow gore. Good horror has a message. And Cube is pleasantly pessimistic about human nature in its message. Perhaps a little heavy handed at times, but as I've said time and again, it worked.
And I guess, for all my complaining, the thing about Cube is that it does work. Every problem I've stated above is overshadowed by the fact that the movie as a whole successfully brought me in and kept me interested and entertained for the duration. And that, I would argue, is the most important part of any film.
So the final verdict? Watch it. Don't drop everything you're doing to watch it now. But put it on your list. And when you're in the mood for a tight, dark, suspense film, pick Cube up and enjoy.
2/3
Thursday, May 8, 2008
The Quality-Quantity Content Divide
Although this blog was originally supposed to update five days a week, monday to friday, anyone who has been paying any attention (or anyone who glances at the archive) could tell you that it has not. Which is ok, because I never officially said it anywhere, so it's not like I was missing official deadlines, just personal goals. Which may be as bad, or worse, but that's another issue entirely. Thing is, after missing about a weeks worth of updates, I updated twice in one day. Which seemed a little like a system overload.
Anyways, this whole fiasco got me thinking about how people consume media online; how people watch serialized videos, read comics, or read blogs. My first impression is that people tend to have short attention spans online. I know I'll rapidly flip through Penny Arcade, Sam and Fuzzy and Zero Punctuation on you average wednesday, consuming the media morsels on offer, then moving on, spending maybe 5-10 minutes per site (Tycho's news post requiring a more than average amount of attention).
So if I run with the short attention span assumption how am I, as a blogger, supposed to keep you, my loyal reader(s), interested. I'm beginning to think there's a sort of fine line between too much content and not enough content. One update a day lets you know I'm still here, gives you something to do instead of actually accomplishing something, but isn't going to leave you feeling left behind.
I wonder though, if someone were to stumble across this website, would they look at the overwhelming volume of text and decide that there was too much content, not enough of it good? My intention here is not to make you feel like you're working. I want you to think - maybe engage in a little meaningful dialogue when you feel like you've got something to say - but I don't want this to be work. This is supposed to be what you do to avoid doing work. I know that's why I'm here.
Then again, does any of that really matter? A lot of this is just an excercise in writing for myself, and although I, like everyone with a website, derive some measure of self-worth (self-importance?) from the number of hits my blog gets, it's not for you. It's for me.
So here's to me hoping I'm not giving you too much crap to wade through, but telling you that for all my wonderings, I'm not going to change a damn thing.
Although sometimes I really do wish I could pick the brains of my visitors.
Anyways, this whole fiasco got me thinking about how people consume media online; how people watch serialized videos, read comics, or read blogs. My first impression is that people tend to have short attention spans online. I know I'll rapidly flip through Penny Arcade, Sam and Fuzzy and Zero Punctuation on you average wednesday, consuming the media morsels on offer, then moving on, spending maybe 5-10 minutes per site (Tycho's news post requiring a more than average amount of attention).
So if I run with the short attention span assumption how am I, as a blogger, supposed to keep you, my loyal reader(s), interested. I'm beginning to think there's a sort of fine line between too much content and not enough content. One update a day lets you know I'm still here, gives you something to do instead of actually accomplishing something, but isn't going to leave you feeling left behind.
I wonder though, if someone were to stumble across this website, would they look at the overwhelming volume of text and decide that there was too much content, not enough of it good? My intention here is not to make you feel like you're working. I want you to think - maybe engage in a little meaningful dialogue when you feel like you've got something to say - but I don't want this to be work. This is supposed to be what you do to avoid doing work. I know that's why I'm here.
Then again, does any of that really matter? A lot of this is just an excercise in writing for myself, and although I, like everyone with a website, derive some measure of self-worth (self-importance?) from the number of hits my blog gets, it's not for you. It's for me.
So here's to me hoping I'm not giving you too much crap to wade through, but telling you that for all my wonderings, I'm not going to change a damn thing.
Although sometimes I really do wish I could pick the brains of my visitors.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Pertinent Review, Six Days Late: Iron Man
The first of the summer blockbusters has arrived. Iron Man kicks the summer off with a light superhero film. From the trailers some might think that the film has a more serious moral story - perhaps slightly controversial - dealing with the current conflicts in the middle east and the opposing viewpoints on those conflicts. If you thought that, you'd be wrong. This is your classic superhero flick, where the bad guys are bad, and the good guys (although flawed, as is typical of Marvel heroes), are good.
Part of the beauty of this film is that it skirts the controversy of current wars so delicately. It never takes shots at the Iraq War, and although it's message couldn't quit be called anti-war, it is decidedly pro-peace. It walks a fine line and it walks it well.
And aside from not offending anyone (if anyone was offended... I'm curious to hear how) the film also happens to be light, fun, funny fare. Robert Downey Jr. is spot on as Stark/the titular character, hitting the emotional notes, but never dragging us too far from the humourous heart of the film. Jon Favreau's direction was excellent as well, as is his bit-part as Hogan, one of Stark's assistants. Really, the cast as a whole was superb.
My only complaint was with some of Gwyneth Paltrow's scenes. Although 90% of the time I thought she did an excellent job, there were a few times when she seemed, well, like a bit of a cartoon character (irony noted). Every now and then, especially towards the end of the film, I felt she came off as a little too cheesy, damsel in distress, far less competent than a long time employee of a genius would be. Perhaps that's what the character was like in the source material. But based on her earlier actions (buying herself gifts from Stark for her birthday) it seemed a little too... well, like a little too much.
That minor complaint aside, Iron Man was good. It won't win any oscars, but it's fun, and it's the first decent movie to hit theatres in a month or two. If you're in the mood for a good, light, funny, action film, then you're in luck. The season of the summer blockbuster is now officially open. And I'm glad it's here.
In short: Go see it. It's worth the price of admission.
3/3
Part of the beauty of this film is that it skirts the controversy of current wars so delicately. It never takes shots at the Iraq War, and although it's message couldn't quit be called anti-war, it is decidedly pro-peace. It walks a fine line and it walks it well.
And aside from not offending anyone (if anyone was offended... I'm curious to hear how) the film also happens to be light, fun, funny fare. Robert Downey Jr. is spot on as Stark/the titular character, hitting the emotional notes, but never dragging us too far from the humourous heart of the film. Jon Favreau's direction was excellent as well, as is his bit-part as Hogan, one of Stark's assistants. Really, the cast as a whole was superb.
My only complaint was with some of Gwyneth Paltrow's scenes. Although 90% of the time I thought she did an excellent job, there were a few times when she seemed, well, like a bit of a cartoon character (irony noted). Every now and then, especially towards the end of the film, I felt she came off as a little too cheesy, damsel in distress, far less competent than a long time employee of a genius would be. Perhaps that's what the character was like in the source material. But based on her earlier actions (buying herself gifts from Stark for her birthday) it seemed a little too... well, like a little too much.
That minor complaint aside, Iron Man was good. It won't win any oscars, but it's fun, and it's the first decent movie to hit theatres in a month or two. If you're in the mood for a good, light, funny, action film, then you're in luck. The season of the summer blockbuster is now officially open. And I'm glad it's here.
In short: Go see it. It's worth the price of admission.
3/3
Wiki this, Wiki that
Wikipedia is a wonderful tool. It's also a great time-waster. And it may also be full of crap.
A recent discussion with a former book seller got me thinking about wikipedia. It's not perfect, but I think the sheer volume of users tends to keep it fairly honest. Maybe not Encaeclopedia Brittanica quality. But on a par with some print Encaeclopedias to be sure.
But is it enough? Right now, I can hop on Wikipedia and read a quick synopsis of pretty much whatever I want, from Penny Arcade to 1951-52 in English Football. I can even have a random article displayed and start learning a little bit about whatever I want. I'll never become the world's leading expert on the subject, but I'll learn a little bit. After enough time, I'll know a little bit about a lot.
The closest equivalent in books (excluding print encaeclopedias) is reading the back cover. But that's more of a teaser than a brief overview. And few will argue that flipping through the pages of a book is faster than Wikipedia's search function.
Of course, you're never going to flip to a random page in a print book and find it vandalized. Or if it is vandalized, you should be able to discern that in no time at all, unlike the sometimes cunning, often crude Wikipedia vandalizations. Maybe the article will only be incorrect for a few minutes, but the chance remains.
So where does Wikipedia fall in the grand scheme of things? I have no problem with it being used academically, as long as it's only a brief usage, backed up by other sources. A certain amount of caution should be excercised by the reader as well; at the very least making sure that an article has been sourced - but probably checking up on a few sources as well - before taking the article as the gospel truth.
Will Wikipedia ever reach true academic standards? Not while it's an open project. But if it stops being an open project, then it'll be deader than dead. I'd call it an interesting experiment, but at this point, I'm pretty sure it's moved beyond that. Perhaps as the internet and the community built up around it matures vandalism of Wikipedia will start to disappear. Or maybe not.
Regardless, I'm going to keep using Wikipedia if only because it's so damned convenient. And I work in a book store.
A recent discussion with a former book seller got me thinking about wikipedia. It's not perfect, but I think the sheer volume of users tends to keep it fairly honest. Maybe not Encaeclopedia Brittanica quality. But on a par with some print Encaeclopedias to be sure.
But is it enough? Right now, I can hop on Wikipedia and read a quick synopsis of pretty much whatever I want, from Penny Arcade to 1951-52 in English Football. I can even have a random article displayed and start learning a little bit about whatever I want. I'll never become the world's leading expert on the subject, but I'll learn a little bit. After enough time, I'll know a little bit about a lot.
The closest equivalent in books (excluding print encaeclopedias) is reading the back cover. But that's more of a teaser than a brief overview. And few will argue that flipping through the pages of a book is faster than Wikipedia's search function.
Of course, you're never going to flip to a random page in a print book and find it vandalized. Or if it is vandalized, you should be able to discern that in no time at all, unlike the sometimes cunning, often crude Wikipedia vandalizations. Maybe the article will only be incorrect for a few minutes, but the chance remains.
So where does Wikipedia fall in the grand scheme of things? I have no problem with it being used academically, as long as it's only a brief usage, backed up by other sources. A certain amount of caution should be excercised by the reader as well; at the very least making sure that an article has been sourced - but probably checking up on a few sources as well - before taking the article as the gospel truth.
Will Wikipedia ever reach true academic standards? Not while it's an open project. But if it stops being an open project, then it'll be deader than dead. I'd call it an interesting experiment, but at this point, I'm pretty sure it's moved beyond that. Perhaps as the internet and the community built up around it matures vandalism of Wikipedia will start to disappear. Or maybe not.
Regardless, I'm going to keep using Wikipedia if only because it's so damned convenient. And I work in a book store.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
