Qwiki is a cool new tool that attempts to make the old-fashioned encyclopedia into a modern, visual creation. Essentially, it uses a computer to read aloud some basic information from Wikipedia about a topic while flashing related images across the screen.

Although the current version is rough, I do think that this represents the wave of the future. After all, it’s hard to deny the power of visual media in our learning and our lives.

For years, I was editor and organizer of our school’s video club. While running that club, I came to realize the power of video images that reside in the mind to shape our thoughts, understanding and perceptions. I see the same power in my daughters, who frequently quote scenes and lines from their favorite movies.
Qwiki, like certain other new media creations, is attempting to move the world of structured knowledge, and the world of education, into the modern, visual age.
Given our natural human inclination toward images and sound, as well as its sticking power, Qwiki seems like the right way to inform an audience about a topic. It also parallels the increasing use of video in the classroom to help inform our students.

At the moment, Qwiki is still rather rough, with a number of problems that counter its advantages. Here are some more notable features.

Advantages:
* the text rolls across the screen while the computer reads it. This allows the viewer to follow along better.
* the visual element of photos and videos combined with audio narration makes an effective tool for quickly understanding a basic topic
* it provides links to other websites for further information, as well as links to other Qwiki videos with related information.

Disadvantages
* the computerized voice loses almost all personality, making it difficult to follow.
* the stock images used often have only a slight relationship to the main topic, so again, the personality and character of a particular topic is lost
* searching is fairly slow, so a modern audience may not choose to wait around
* the information is fairly limited, and often quite technical; Wikipedia still provides a lot more detail

Like other computer tools, Qwiki highlights the limitations of our current computers for recreating what are essentially human experiences and understandings. Though we are nearly addicted to technology, most of us still crave the human touch, and Qwiki fails to deliver that, providing something that sounds more like the computer Hal from 2001: A Space Odyssey.

In order to improve Qwiki, I believe, the company will need much more human input. One clever feature in Qwiki is a quick survey of the audience after a video to provide some feedback on the quality (I’m not sure whether this is done for every viewer, or only the beta users). Like Wikipedia, Qwiki needs to allow volunteers with an interest to edit and alter the entries for a better product. Whether the new “right now” generations will want to take the time to do this is still a question in my mind.