Blogging assignment 3
There are two pages related to my final project— Chinese medicine in Hong Kong. One is from the Chinese version of wikipedia , talking about Former Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa ‘s bill in his first Policy Address , aiming at recognizing the professional status of Chinese medicine practitioners and developing Hong Kong into an international centre for the manufacture and trading of Chinese medicine.
It said that the bill had not been put into practice during the tenure of Mr. Tung, and it seemed to have the same destiny as other bills, which can be regarded as never existing if have not been mentioned.
However, as far as I know, the bill does have a significant impact on the status of Chinese medicine in
Hong Kong, and represent the future development of Chinese medicine to some extent. Some local universities have offered the Chinese medicine courses, which, help enhance the social status of Chinese medicine. I made the edits to the page.
The other page is Traditional Chinese medicine , under the subtitle “Uses”, it only mentioned Chinese medicine in the Mainland, however, in Hong Kong, things are different. I made the following edits : However, in Hong Kong, the city dominated by Western medicine for more than a hundred years, traditional medicine has struggled for a long time to be recognized by the society. Albeit Former Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa introduced a bill in his first Policy Address[2], aiming at recognizing the professional status of Chinese medicine practitioners and developing Hong Kong into an international centre for the manufacture and trading of Chinese medicine, and for the promotion of this approach to medical care, until December 1, 2006, according to Labour Department of HKSAR[3], Hong Kong people, for the first time, can use a certification issued by a registered Chinese medicine practitioner as a sick leave. The new ordinance reflects that traditional medicine has established its social status inHong Kong.One of my teachers once said that students in his class can never use Wikipedia as an attribution for any news writing, because he has never trusted the information from Wikipedia, which can be revised by any anonyms and make it difficult to verify.
As JimmyWales ,the founder of Wikipedia said in an article Know it all: Can Wikipedia conquer expertise that to him, the key thing was to get things right. But how can Wikipedia, an officially anonymous website, make a promise that everything on the webpage is true.
People have recognized that Wikipedia is based on software, which only has to meet the standard of making things work. It has no obligation to test the truth.
There are other debates on Wikipedia, say whether juridical rulings can rely on Wikipedia, as Courts Turn to Wikipedia, but Selectively talking about and whether Wikipedia can be used as a research source as Wikipedia Receives a Citation mentioned, the essence of the debates lies in whether the information from Widipedia is reliable and trustworthy.
Even the court and academic paper highly value the reliability and accuracy of the source, let alone journalism, to which searching for the truth is the soul.
Wikipedia is a powerful resource seeing that it is a combination of minds, thoughts and facts, in most instances. For journalists, the best way is to use it as reference. Since journalists are not all-knowing, and they only have limited time to do the research work before conducting an interview.
By providing direct background information and convenient access, Wikipedia can facilitate journalists to get a better understanding of the topic in a short period of time, helping to conduct the interview more efficiently.
As having the same function as the blog, Wikipedia enables anyone in the world a free space of expression and communication, in response to the voice from the authority and mainstream media. It is an effective way to protect the freedom of expression, yet journalists should also realize that not all the people can abide by Wikipedia’s rule of expressing a neutral point of view, which means the information may not be objective.
Wikipedia, by and large, is a convenient and efficient tool for journalists to do research for the interview, however, journalists should make a clear distinction between neutral facts and prejudice.
March 1st, 2007 at 2:07 am
Good job with your wikipedia edit. Next time you edit, I suggest creating an account and logging in with a username before editing. That way your edits will be given more credibility by the editors.