W4.2 The Puzzle of Openness / Kim Yoon(김윤)

Summary

The trolls in Wikipedia are, in a way, the driving force behind good articles. As it is a highly open community, there are advantages and disadvantages of the inflow of trolls. Early Wikipedia was similar to anarchy. This chapter deals with the characteristics of Wikipedia's openness and whether Wikipedia is really open.
Wikipedia users share common norms and rules. It also depends on each other and gives and receives feedback in a friendly way. Wikipedia has the characteristics of open content, transparency, integrity, non-discrimination, defenselessness, and good. Nevertheless, Wikipedia has many controversies, and some experts sometimes liken it to a disaster-ridden place. What is required is the balance between openness and high quality. However, in the process of preventing Wikipedia from simply becoming an anarchic space, access to innocent Wikipedia accounts is sometimes blocked.
Wikipedia has "anyone" access, but it must wisely specify the scope of "anyone." That way, we can make a high-quality encyclopedia.

Interesting

I thought Wikipedia would be well received in that it would be easily accessible to people who might be left out of information, but I learned that many people were concerned about certain aspects of Wikipedia than I expected. And I am reminded that the essence of Wikipedia is to go to a "quality encyclopedia," and I agree that in order to do so, it needs to be able to wisely distinguish between trolls and clumsy but authentic accounts among many accounts.

Discussion

Earlier in the text, it was said that sometimes innocent Wikipedia accounts are blocked from accessing. Wouldn't Wikipedia be able to block access to unclear, seemingly unreasonable accounts, and then reverse discrimination comes from people?

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