W3. The Vision of Wikipedia

 



W3: The Vision of Wikipedia

Is Wikipedia vision realistic?

 This is the vision of Wikipedia. "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." Wikipedia lowered the barrier to entry for everyone by putting down the administrator's authority as much as possible. the goal is to create a place where people can gather and share knowledge freely.

 We also learned from the lecture that there are only few platforms that will follow Wikipedia globally about the amount of information and the number of users. Therefore, I think this vision is realistic enough. Wikipedia made a forum for knowledge sharing faster than anyone else, and approached Web 2.0 first. This attempt has resulted in a huge amount of information accumulated over a long period of time and could have a large number of users.

I think that given an environment in which everyone can enjoy complete freedom, there is also have the power to balance. Various people can gather together to share knowledge freely, and problems that arise within them can also be solved within freedom. On the contrary, when certain censorship and intervention occurs, it can flow in a biased direction. Also, Wikipedia does not work for someone's benefit because it does not have a commercial purpose. I think this principle is an important value for keeping Wikipedia free. Since this is not pursuing someone's interests, everyone can have the same rights to speak. Accordingly, I think this vision to share personal knowledge freely is realistic enough.

Comments

  1. MINKYO JEONG, 정민교March 21, 2021 at 7:17 AM

    Shinhee, your posting is very interesting. And I also deeply agree that the knowledge sharing platform is realistic. So I think we should think about some concerns.

    I mean opinions that can be ignored by the majority. For example, sexual minorities, women, or others. As everyone is free to participate, I think the knowledge of those who are difficult to participate can be more neglected.

    I want to think about this aspect together through the future lectures.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

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