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

 My thoughts are by reading "Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia" in Chapter 3 'Good Faith Collaboration'  and in Chapter 4 of "The Puzzle of Openness".


1）Summary

in Chapter 3 'Good Faith Collaboration' : Introduced the origin and history of "collaboration culture". A detailed description of Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. Correctly explained what is a neutral and unbiased view in Wikipedia. Some scholars have proposed many technologies to promote the collaboration and enhancement of Wikipedia, and this technology is one of the elements of Wikipedia's success. And need to strengthen the patience of the spirit of assistance. All contributors on Wikipedia should be respected. And mutual respect is the most basic kind of courtesy. The collaborative culture of Wikipedia-"Neutral View" (NPOV) and a sincere attitude require everyone's joint efforts.

in Chapter 4 of "The Puzzle of Openness": It explains in detail the 5 characteristics of the Wikipedia community about development: 1. Open content 2. Transparency 3. Integrity 4. Nondiscrimination 5. Noninterference. 


2) Learn interesting point.

Participants of Wikipedia come from different countries, regions and cultural backgrounds, and have different positions and opinions. Respect for others has become the key to effective Wikipedia collaboration. Wikipedia’s editing simulation adopts the neutral point of view NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) to avoid Wikipedia’s endless arguments like BBS. The neutral point of view is an absolute and unshakable foundation. The editorial policy of the article is to express various academic opinions without prejudice, and the editor's personal position and opinions are not allowed to be written in the article. However, it is unavoidable to encounter controversy in the process of writing entries, so Wikipedia tries its best to "narrate" instead of adopting a specific position. For example, constantly stating that "God exists" does not deny that God does not exist, but rather states that "most Americans believe that God does". Wikipedia is open to diversity, and its job is to record these different views and facts, not to judge them for itself. Wikipedia's technology also guarantees that every change is kept intact, and that each entry has several possible interpretations that users can adopt at their discretion.

Wikipedia sees its core purpose as providing information, not persuading users. Some items that are biased or have advertisements and political defamation will be marked as POV. In extreme cases, an entry that spends a lot of time on one point of view and little on others may be judged a POV, even though the point of view may appear neutral.


3) Discussion angle

So do you think that Wikipedia editors who adopt a neutral view are writing for the enemy?






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