Monday, August 1, 2011
New Hypertext - Vogue Stealing Wiki's Idea
This is a little random but Lauren's post about hypertext reminded me. I met a girl on my flight Sunday who told me about a new Hypertext on the web. (Since this is a new media course, I figured it's good to post some new technology as it arises) A few classes ago we came to the big realization that the world wide web is one big hypertext. We also realized that Wikipedia is a hypertext because you can be on one page and click the other hyperlinks to find other topics - similar to the hypertext stories we viewed on the web that day. Wikileaks and basically all other Wiki+noun websites operate the same way. Recently, Vogue decided that they would take this idea and run with it and they created: Voguepedia. It's essentially a hypertext that centers solely around fashion: designers, models, brands, personalities, and beauty. They're currently building the website right now, they have released it for the public and, similar to wikipedia, it is always expanding. Unlike wikipedia though, they are requiring extensive research and article submission before they post it to the website. Makes you wonder what hypertext is next: sports for example could be just as broad a topic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Love love love this! I think it is necessary to have something like this as a baseline, almost like a dictionary or history of fashion just to separate it from individual style and personal fashion blogs. I can understand why it may be smart for Voguepedia to have more extensive review before submission/posting etc, but it also changes the dynamic of it. Understandably Wikipedia is sometimes not appropriate for research papers & citing sources, but I think we do not give it enough credit for how reliable it can be. The beauty of Wikipedia is that it is not centralized and allows people to correct and constantly override one another to form a final product that is pretty accurate, and well-rounded in nature. This type of format makes information seemingly so maleable, and true or not, I think there should be more importance on how raw and all-encompassing it is. Either way, I think this is an amazing site, I am just curious to know how much input is taken into account.
ReplyDelete