W4: The Puzzle of Openness / Lee ye han

 Summary

 This material includes an open content community with open characteristics. Wikipedia is also an open community where many people can freely access it. These open communities include characteristics such as open content, non-discrimination and non-interference, transparency, and open content.

Wikipedia is open to everyone, but not everything is free. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, but if it interferes with the creation of an encyclopedia, it limits its editing. 

The "The Puzzle of Openness" says it is helpful to use real names to balance openness with the qualitative value of information. Although anonymity can be suggested as an advantage of openness, the real-name system is effective for obtaining responsible information or balancing information quality. Discussions on how to balance this need to be continued.

 

An interesting point I learned

 It was interesting to say that using real names can balance the qualitative value of information with openness. If you disclose your name, not anonymous, I think you will be much more likely to provide more responsible and transparent information.

On the other hand, wouldn't anonymity reduce the amount of information sharing? It occurred to me that

It was interesting to be able to think about the advantages and disadvantages of real-name systems and anonymity.

 

Discussion point

 Wikipedia is an open community open to many people. It is said that anyone seeks the freedom to edit articles, but editing is limited if it is considered unnecessary information. There are also articles that cannot be modified.

It is necessary to some extent for high-quality data, but is Wikipedia free for everyone?

What additional methods do you think are needed to balance the quality value and openness of information?

Comments

  1. WANG XIAOLINGMarch 28, 2021 at 5:49 AM

    I think that although Wikipedia provides a huge amount of information services, these services are not provided by the employees it recruits, but by countless volunteers. It does not need to pay wages. If there is a charge for using Wikipedia, it will also lose so much free labor, and this must be a huge cost. Perhaps no company can afford the wages of so many high-tech talents. In this sense, it must be free for everyone.

    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