W5: Do you think Wikipedia is right to reject censorship? / Lee ye han

 My opinion


I think Wikipedia is right to reject censorship.

Wikipedia is an Internet encyclopedia where anyone can freely share and participate in knowledge.

In other words, it is a field of collective intelligence that people make by collecting accurate information.

However, if censored by any institution or person, Wikipedia's vision or purpose is likely to be completely ignored.

Also, I think censorship is not right because it is hard to determine whether the subject and standard of censorship are objective.

 

If there is a false content or obstruction in Wikipedia, it is correct to delete it, but due to the nature of collective intelligence, users of Wikipedia can correct it or correct it inside Wikipedia.

It would be difficult for people to freely share knowledge if censorship is conducted from the outside.

 

Considering these points, Wikipedia thinks it is right to reject censorship to protect the identity of the site.

Comments

  1. 진신April 3, 2021 at 2:50 AM

    In Wikipedia, the relationship between volunteers is also communal supervision. I think this has played a vital role in maintaining good faith collaboration of Wikipedia.Whether the subject and criteria of the review are objective, it is actually difficult to consider.But it must be specified according to the characteristics of a specified area.In this way, Wikipedia loses its original meaning after being censored. The censorship system has its pros and cons. The refusal of censorship is to ensure the autonomy of Wikipedia. However, if it is censored, Wikipedia will lose its autonomy and at the same time improve its rule management.

    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

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

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