week4:The Puzzle of Openness

Summary

As it said in the article, Wikipedia's core desire is to increase access to information: to open up opportunities and abilities to anyone who has a desire to learn. Wikipedia’s open statement can be seen in its motto: “Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The success of Wikipedia so far depends entirely on our open community. Only those of us who are involved continue to do the right thing. This community will continue to live, breathe and grow. Wikipedia is an open content community. Because people discuss and make decisions together to create this space together. They share a collaborative culture.


An interesting point I learned

Compared with other collaborative cultures, there is a clear division of labor between the upper and lower levels. Wikipedia refers to its collaborative cultural space as a community. I think this is a very interesting point. It is open for discussion. Wikipedia is free and open, but freedom and openness are restricted because they interfere with the creation of encyclopedias. Therefore, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. This seems very contradictory, but it is very reasonable on Wikipedia. I think the scale that defines this boundary is very important, and I am very interested in it.


Discussion angle

 Neutrality is an attitude, not a method or result. This is what some organizations that have always criticized the neutrality of Wikimedia have been deliberately confusing. Neutrality and objectivity are two completely different concepts, and the statement that "there is no absolute neutrality" is absurd. Wiki-based neutrality principle: "Equally express any important opinions that have been published in reliable sources". The implication is: even if the content of the argument is biased by the editor, as long as the source is reliable, then the argument itself It should also be used as a reasonable reference. If there are reliable sources and are expressed equally, then at least this view represents the views of many people (scholars) in the world. Although you, as a party, may feel that such views are unfair, it will be the biggest disaster if you do not allow such views that many people agree to be published! Human knowledge and ideas are originally the result of communication and integration. What we should oppose is not whether the content of the entry itself is biased, but that the entry only refers to the words of one family, and deliberately eliminates the voice of opposition, or uses too much subjectivity Sexual adjectives.

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