W3) My thoughts on the reality of Wikipedia, and copyright-free (no editor owns any article) /박채정, PARK CHAEJEONG

 Before answering the questions, this is the key point that I thought about while reading the material and listening lectures this week.

= Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia inspired by free and open source software (FOSS) and intended to increase access to information.

= Wikipedia is the pioneer of good faith culture.




 Q1. Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge - is this realistic?


 In Reading material, Jimmy Wales refers to the fundamental values that Wikipedia seeks in addition to the features of the software/program itself. How valuable it is to increase accessibility of knowledge and to make users together at the users.

 We are free to share and interact with many people in a space called Wikipedia. Through this process, we can develop the ability to judge right from wrong, study more deeply about the topic, and make logical responses. You can feel the great power of collaboration. Wouldn't this mean that we are still seeing a world where we can share freely in the sum of all knowledge? If it were in the past, he might have said firmly, 'It's unrealistic, it can't happen.' However, from the present perspective, it seems that we will be able to live up to the full sharing of knowledge through Wikipedia in the near future. 

 Universalists may say Wikipedia is an ideal website, but I think it is a realistic enough website. It cannot be seen as a perfect encyclopedia, but a new concept encyclopedia is created. No, it's already been born. (=Realistic)



 Q2. Since all your contributions are freely licensed to the public, no editor owns any article; all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed. - How do you feel about that?


 Of course, I can't have my own contribution because everyone who uses this online encyclopedia can be editors. But isn't that Wikipedia's differentiated strengths, unlike other websites? Ungrounded indiscriminate editing is clearly wrong, but it is right if it needs to be corrected and added to the article. If copyright is important, I think we need to find out more about Wikipedia. 

 It is also necessary to respect and understand diversity in order to prevent mis-editing and distribution. There is also one new thing I learned from this attitude toward Wikipedia. Just as there is nothing perfect, the wrong thing is to fix, and if you fail, you can try again. That is why they can develop a posture that tries to understand themselves and the situation. 

 Wikipedia is very valuable, and we can use data for free, or develop these thoughts and attitudes. I think this alone is enough reason to use Wikipedia.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

W7: Review of Good Faith Collaboration / Suyoung Han

  Review of Good Faith Collaboration 1) Summary – Wikipedia from an ethnographic perspective: focusing on collaboration within the community Wikipedia, which is called the world's largest encyclopedia, is an open community and is becoming more and more solid with the participation of various people, conflict, and resolution. In this respect, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. attempted to explain the culture that takes place within Wikipedia. The book describes how Wikipedia was created and what it values. In particular, he described Wikipedia in a book from an ethnographic point of view, and focused on cooperation within the community. 2) Interesting Point – Wikipedia is simple, but not I realized that Wikipedia is not just a site made up of community activities, but rather a collaborative activity that is carried out concretely for the goal. Before I read the book, Wikipedia was an encyclopedia site that only gave me information (even I didn't trust the information), and I thought ...
Read more

W10 : Can we think of some example of how Internet has changed our culture? / 박소민(SOMIN PARK)

 1. Summary  The Internet has changed our culture so much. First, through the Internet, we can meet people regardless of distance. People in each country communicated over the Internet and reduced the barriers to distance by creating relationships. Also, the Internet has let us stay away from books. When we want to find expertise, we can get it from Wikipedia or Google. Even information in books can be obtained through e-books, reducing access to libraries and paper books. 2. Interesting point Further to the above, our brains are gradually degenerating because we don't have to remember information. We are constantly interrupted by SNS notifications ringing on our phones when we do something, so our concentration and attention are being reduced. Furthermore, the ease of obtaining information online is causing our short-term memory to decline. 3. Discussion point I think the Internet has made it easy to sever a relationship with a person because we can meet another person simply...
Read more

w9: Its often said by teachers that “Wikipedia is a good place to start, but a bad place to finish” why? LiuXinlei

 Its often said by teachers that “Wikipedia is a good place to start, but a bad place to finish” why? In terms of the comprehensiveness of the content, we have to admit the advantages of Wikipedia. For example, Wikipedia is undoubtedly my first choice when I don't understand an event at all. It is convenient, fast and comprehensive, and I can spend the least time to understand the whole content of this fact as comprehensively and neutrally as possible. But in the process of in-depth learning, Wikipedia can only be used as an introductory content, because in learning we need to understand this fact as much as possible, and we need to understand the different views of scholars in different regions on the same event. There will be different theories. Some theories seem to be not neutral or even discriminatory or ethnographic at present (such as Marxism and Marxism in China), and it is not suitable for Wikipedia. Be shown. In short, Wikipedia has a very low threshold for users. It assu...
Read more