W5) Do you think Wikipedia is right to reject censorship? /YANG RUIXIN


 1. Summary

First of all, I want to share a story，To ensure content neutrality, Wikipedia has even had a "fight" with the U.S. Department of Justice "，In 2008, U.S. Department of Justice officials revised a pro-Israel term for Media Surveillance Group in Wikipedia，Deleted the scandal that is unfavorable to oneself in the entry, added some "glorious deeds ". Wikipedia temporarily blocked the IP address of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales at the meeting，Wikipedia would rather give up doing business in countries than accept any form of Internet censorship in countries. Wikipedia will never comply with the requirement to restrict information, and access to knowledge and education is a human right.

Some views of some opponents:

Shen Yi, an Internet research expert at Fudan University's Department of International Politics, told the Global Times that the Internet was never unregulated. The speech by the founder of Wikipedia gives the impression that Wikipedia follows the absolute principle of free flow of information and opposes all forms of content management. But it may just be an idealized expression. In fact, the regulation of the Internet is not a value problem, but a standard and technical problem of management. What is needed is constructive discussion, coordination, and consultation, Labeling may mask failures caused by poor business market strategies, but it is not positive for the healthy development of the Internet.

But I think Wikipedia is an international collaborative web encyclopedia site, All entries on Wikipedia are based on neutral positions and guidelines set by its users，Wikipedia is constantly improving, for biased entries, the solution is not to block or ignore, but to participate in editing, because wikis are always "neutral" and "open.

2. Interesting point

The interesting thing to think about is Blocking Wikipedia would be a great irony for censors, who would admit that it is precisely neutral facts that scare them. Wikipedia can not be described as anti-government —— unless the government wants to state that neutral information is anti-government.



3. Discussion point

Wikipedia is not a political propaganda machine, Wikipedia is not online gambling, Wikipedia is not pornography. Wikipedia is not...?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia!

Comments

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