Talk:Monopolies of knowledge

New media doesn't qualify as encyclopedic content

Not one to unilaterally remove informative content from an important page, I didn't delete the final section, but we know that it's original content. So, either source and cite it or remove it.

An additional problem with "New media" is its randomness, and the unexemplary, low relevance of the NY TImes example. (The Pentagon? Cyber-infrastructure-terrorism? That's not what Monopolies of Knowledge are about. How about the Pentagon's embedment of journalists in Iraq 2 (Desert Storm), WikiLeaks's Iraq video, or the military brass provided by the Pentagon to Fox as propaganda surrogates?) As I began reading, I thought that the reference to the Times would be that the Times was an extrapolated example of an Innis new media monopoly, given the fragmentation of other media and advantage to established businesses such as the Times. But maybe we've moved on, and Innis is trumped by the marginalization of all even official media in an entertainment society in which propaganda is no longer necessary, given that information must entertain or it will be ignored.

Bottom line: There is so much more to say under the heading of New media. That said, whatever is said must be sourced.

Dstlascaux (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, So I think that this article needs both more sources talking about the Monopolies of Knowledge and perhaps there needs to be less said specifically about Harold Innis. I know that he 'created the idea' but this article reads too much like an essay about Harold Innis and his theory but it should read more like an encyclopedia entry on the actual theory of Monopolies of Knowledge. --Alybe (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to make this article seem to be less about what one man thinks, I believe that it still needs more sources that are not Harold Innis in order to make this article a well-rounded one that actually focuses on the theory of monopolies of knowkedge. --Alybe (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I found this page as a kind of a stand-alone, orphan in the course of my extensive Wikipedia work on Harold Innis. See Harold Innis, the various subpages such as Harold Innis's communications theories and the still incomplete entry on Empire and Communications. I contributed more than anyone else to this entry. If someone really wants to broaden (and improve) it, I believe that person could update the concept to illustrate how monopolies of knowledge and power seem to be breaking down with the advent of new technologies. Consider the state of mainstream journalism especially once-powerful newspapers supported by advertising or the state of the traditional music recording industry. Innis provided conceptual tools for analyzing such shifts, but few have thought to use them. Or consider the latest monopolies of knowledge typified by the Bill Gates empire and the sharp criticism levelled at powerful Internet and digital technologies by the likes of Jaron Lanier. More is needed here than just eliminating a few direct references to Harold Innis. Bwark (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Toronto supported by WikiProject Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)