In the new media age the issues of things like commons knowledge and copyright material are being debated frequently and passionately. Commons knowledge is the concept of being able be more free to edit and perceive content. Whereas copyright is the opposite and had strict rules as to who has access, to edit the content. In this way there is debate to what technique is more “right”. In a way commons knowledge has it’s advantages of being more public driven and oriented by have user friendly information that can be edited pretty consistently as events happen (A celebrity death or age as a birthday passes). However, a drawback to this continuously edited material is that it can cloud the accuracy of the information provided and thus can mislead the consumer which is not the goal of the commons knowledge approach. On the contrasting side, a plus of having information be copyrighted is that there is a higher chance that the information has been expertly edited or curated, because why go through the trouble of having intentionally inaccurate information copyrighted. But this also leads to some issues, for example some websites with material that is under copyright about a current event won’t be updated or may even be left stagnate. (Statistics on voter turnout).
I believe that information that is free to be edited is a cool idea but also can be dangerous. I approach things like Wikipedia like a skeptic and constantly ask myself is what I’m reading real? Or the product of a citizen editor’s imagination? (Perhaps this is the years of it not being recognized in the academic world has made me biased). In this way I like to go to a more reputable and thus more likely. However, it is my belief the a work that has a copyright is more reputable. Ideally I would not go to a commons knowledge based source for information of any kind, I would more likely visit what I consider a stable and reliable source.
An example of a site I wouldn’t use:
An example of a site I would wholeheartedly trust:
Céline Legal information: