w4：“The Puzzle of Openness”

 Summary：

Wikipedia’s claim of openness is seen in its motto: “Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.”This makes there must be terrible rumors in Wikipedia. Wikipedia has not helped this confusion given its primary rule of “Ignore All Rules.”  Wikipedia is an open content community.Here, why "jointly participate in discussions and decision-making, and share some practices that both define and be restored by the community".Sharing a collaborative culture.In addition, the Wikipedia community can be further understood as "pro-social" because it exhibits voluntary and beneficial behaviors. Specifically, as an open content community, Wikipedia is characterized by sweeping content, transparency, integrity, non-discrimination, and non-interference.


Interesting：

I am quite interested in the English Wikipedia declares itself as “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.”see if it is really a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit?In terms of Wikipedia's editing form, it looks just like this.Just like in Wikipedia, people who don’t have an account or who are anonymous can edit it.



Discussion：

Wikipedia is said to be editable globally. When it comes to content between countries, all countries have positions. It was changed by various people. Who determined the final content?

My point of view: Wikipedia is editable worldwide. When it comes to country content, all countries have their positions, and of course they have been modified by many people. So it will never be accurately defined, it will be out in changed all the time. So please remember that the slogan of Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, not an authoritative encyclopedia.




Comments

  1. 박채정 Park ChaeJeongMarch 27, 2021 at 8:56 AM

    Hi, 진신.
    I was able to organize the lectures I took once more easily after seeing your summary. It is interesting that Wikipedia claims that openness and freedom are contradictory. I think it's hard to satisfy both sides when problems arise. But we will have to keep balancing. Just as the real-name system can balance openness with the qualitative value of information, I think 'equality, transparency..' is the same. I think the values that Wikipedia pursues are not separately divided, but all connected.

    ReplyDelete

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