Week 2. why do you think wikipedia is becoming more accepted?

In today's information society, we can receive information from different sources every day, but I believe that Wikipedia is a great progress in cultural history. In my previous studies on communication, I found that it is difficult for information to achieve neutrality in communication, and Wikipedia does a good job at this point. We can only describe the facts from an objective perspective, and we cannot add our own opinions. Not only will more people have access to the thing itself, but it can also promote the discussion of different opinions. I always think that the most beautiful thing in this world is the diversity and difference of things, which is also an indispensable part of the social structure. And Wikipedia did it, just like the existence of a cultural utopia.

But it is not difficult to admit that the editing and operation of Wikipedia is indeed not very simple. It takes a period of exploration and learning. Although it provides a lot of help, some minor situations may still occur at some times. At the same time, its neutral feature can also cause disputes among people with different positions. As it said, Wikipedia is not perfect, but with the exposure of these flaws, what we can see is the deep level of humanity, the pursuit and desire for knowledge born by human beings. Wikipedia has broken through most of the knowledge. Boundaries have also changed the structure of some society. We are willing to believe and participate in Wikipedia as a community, formed through practical cooperation, and we are also willing to believe that the power of public welfare is sufficient to change deficiencies.

Comments

  1. WANG XIAOLINGMarch 14, 2021 at 7:51 AM

    Well said, I think there is a more important reason because Wikipedia is a website without advertisements. Compared with many online platforms, Wikipedia has always adhered to its own principles and has become a non-commercial website. It has remained so, so it has become more and more popular.

    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