W4: "Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia" - 'Good Faith Collaboration' and 'The Puzzle of Openness'

 1. 

There are two complementary postures at the heart of Wikipedia collaboration: the stances of “Neutral Point of View” (NPOV) and good faith. Whereas other communities may have a culture of good faith (i.e., assume good faith on the part of others, and acting with patience, civility, and humor), few are concerned with producing an encyclopedia.  Collaborative culture refers to a set of assumptions, values, meanings, and actions pertaining to working together within a community. Jenkins defines participatory culture as one in which there are low barriers of engagement, support for creation and sharing, and some form of mentorship or socialization, and members believe that their contributions matter and they “feel some degree of social connection with one another.” By these criteria, Wikipedia would qualify.

Wiki is the best example of this notion of “regenerative” or “recursive” feedback. Editing in wiki is agile and manageable.


In principle, there are three levels of authority associated with Wikipedia norms: essays, nonauthoritative pages that may contain useful insights; guidelines, actionable norms approved by general consensus; and policy, much the same but “more official and less likely to have exceptions. The five important elements of Wikipedia's collaboration are verifiable accuracy, neutral perspective, free content that anyone can edit, respect, and it is no firm rules other than the five principles.


Wikis are a relatively novel way of working together: online, asynchronous, possibly anonymous, incremental, and cumulative. In situations that can cause confusion, collaboration is an important factor in determining the future of Wiki. Whereas NPOV renders the subject matter of a collaborative encyclopedia compatible, good faith makes it possible to work together. 


A central aspiration in the pursuit of a universal encyclopedia is increased access to information: an opening of opportunity and capability to anyone with a desire to learn. However, Wikipedia’s openness, based on the inspiration of the Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) movement and the capabilities of hypertext, is not a collaborative panacea. This is because there are various risks stemming from openness.


an open content community is characterized by:


Open content: provides content that is available under licenses like those that satisfy the Open Source Definition.

Transparency: makes its processes, rules, determinations, and their rationales available.

Integrity: ensures the integrity of the processes and the participants’ contributions.

Nondiscrimination: prohibits arbitrary discrimination against persons, groups, or characteristics not relevant to the community’s scope of activity. Persons and proposals should be judged on their merits. Leadership should be based on meritocratic or representative processes.

Noninterference: the linchpin of openness, if a constituency disagrees with the implementation of the previous three values, the open content license permits the constituents to take the content and commence work under their own conceptualization without interference. While “forking” is often complained about in open communities — it can create some redundancy/inefficiency — it is an essential characteristic and major benefit of open communities as well.


Wikipedia is an example of an open content community. Such a conceptualization entails the core value of providing open content, and the implication of forking. However, it can be difficult to balance the associated values of transparency, integrity, and nondiscrimination, as well as other concerns such as free speech and the safety of people and the project itself. 




2.

I thought about an open Internet platform. The word "openness" may sound positive at first, but I realized it could be accompanied by danger. On the contrary, the closeness may sound a bit negative, but I found that it provides a sense of security and belonging. This concept will not only apply to Internet platforms. I think it could be difficult to feel a sense of belonging as a group because anyone can come in and out. Strangely enough, however, Wikipedia users seem to feel a sense of belonging.


3.

Why do Wikipedia users feel a sense of belonging on an open platform?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

W7: GFC book notes By 'William S. Kowinski' , 'Cory Doctorow','Piotr Konieczny' and 'Paul Youngquist'/ 진신

Summary- William S. Kowinski: The true exception is the innovative success of a collaborative effort that has prime online reference work called Wikipedia. This book is not meant to be biography or reportage, but contemporary ethnography or study of a culture. What this book does well is describe how Wikipedia works and what issues have arisen.  It's short on drama and personality，and so it's probably destined to be a source document. Since that seems unlikely, this may remain the best opportunity for learning about this remarkable project. Summary- Cory Doctorow: Reagle makes an excellent case that this assumption of good faith is particularly powerful when it comes to dealing with those who lack good faith — it creates positive outcomes for arguments with everyone from neo-Nazis to political hacks who're whitewashing their boss's entries. Wikipedia's most fascinating and unprecedented aspect isn't the encyclopedia itself — rather, it's the collaborative cu...
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

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