Wikipedia: Friend or Foe?

After investigating just how Wikipedia disseminates knowledge, I have changed the way in which I use Wikipedia as a source of knowledge. After realizing that Wikipedia's quality of knowledge can be improved or disproved by any person from any part of the world, I have chosen to use Wikipedia only as a starting point for any research that I do. As I read Wikipedia to start off my research, I will take the information I read in with a grain of salt. After gaining a sound base for my topic, I will further research my topic using the resources listed at the end of the Wikipedia page in order to verify the information.

The discussions that take place on Wikipedia are indeed intriguing and often help settle any confusion on the topic being discussed. For example, on the discussion page of William Mulholland, confusion came about when one posted on whether or not Mulholland was solely responsible for the collapse of the St. Francis Dam. In the discussion it was made clear that although William Mulholland built the dam, the Los Angeles government as a whole was responsible for leaving Mulholland as the only engineer for the dam. This cleared up a lot of confusion as to whether or not Mulholland deserved all the blame for the collapsing of the St. Francis Dam and also shed more knowledge on all those you participated and viewed the discussion.

Now, I would definitely join the discussion of any Wikipedia page, especially when false statements are being made in regards to a topic. Correcting these false statements with reliable resources as backup will not only help spread correct knowledge, but also clear up any confusion that was made.

Teacher vs. Student

Back in high school, I have encountered many situations where communal acquisition of knowledge has clashed with authoritative acquisition of knowledge. A prime example of this would be when my high school English class discussed the novel "Seabuscuit: An American Legend" by Laura Hillenbrand through the means of a Socratic seminar. In the seminar, each one of my classmates commented on an aspect of the book including the theme, plot, and background story of the novel by using their very own view of the story. Through this method, the entire class was able to gain knowledge on the lessons that Hillenbrand wanted readers to gain through reading the novel.

However, after the Socratic seminar, the entire class found out that Hillenbrand's lesson in "Seabuscuit: An American Legend" was different from the lesson that our class generated through discussion and debate amongst one another. Our teacher, who studied Hillenbrand in college as an English major, presented us with Hillenbrand's lesson in her novel which clearly differed from our generated lesson.

As a class we began to question our teacher's knowledge and even her creditability. How could our class-generated lesson be completely different from the author's intended lesson? Before the class got too rowdy with opposition, our teacher informed us that although our lesson was completely different from the lesson of the author, it does not mean that our lesson is wrong. She continued by stating that when people read novels, they interpret them differently and thus take away different lessons from the novel. The class let out one big sigh of relief as we realized just how true our teacher's statement was.

The form of learning that I find most useful is communal acquisition of knowledge. This is because a group of people with different perspectives and opinions on the world who come together to discuss a topic with the help of research can acquire more knowledge from each other in my opinion. In addition, I feel that I can learn more from peers my age who I can relate to than say an old professor with years of experience under his or her belt.

No "Japs" Allowed

How could a group of people be treated so badly in a place that they tried so hard to become a part of? In my "Strangers in a Strange Land" essay I decided to focus my paper on the Japanese migrating to America in their first big wave, and their reception once they got there.

I decided to write about the Japanese because after reading the novel "Southland" by Nina Revoyr and realizing how terribly the Japanese were treated after the bombing at Pearl Harbor. The novel tells a vivid account of the Japanese having to pack and sell all their belongings before being shipped off into internment camps. Such drastic measures performed by the US shocked as I would never fathom internment of an innocent group of people occurring in this time period.

The film that I viewed in my "Los Angeles and the American Dream" lecture entitled "White Rabbit" also prompted me to write this essay on the Japanese because it also depicted the Japanese in internment camps. One scene solidified the Japanese's position in American society during the 1940's as a young Japanese girl told her mother that she was American and not Japanese at all. Her mother's response was, "If you're American, why are you in this camp?" This scene allowed me to realize that no matter how much the Japanese people wanted to assimilate into American society during that time period, they would never be accepted.

Continuing to read more primary sources about the Japanese's experience while attempting to assimilate into American culture will definitely give me more insight into how the Japanese personally felt. However, how could a group of people continue to try and assimilate into a culture that blatantly rejected them? My mindset in this time period as a Japanese would be to leave America and create a new life in Japan (which many Issei did). It has been a long battle for the Japanese to finally become accepted in America, but their persistence paid off in the end thanks to the civil rights movements that took place all of the country in the 1960's.