W5: Do you think Wikipedia is right to reject censorship? /WANG XIAOLING, 왕효령

1) Summary

Netizens all over the world will thank Wikipedia for advancing the democratization of global information with technology, but in the eyes of many government officials or creators, Wikipedia is a copyright destroyer and even a "terrorist" in the online world. The struggle between science and technology and the Internet and law and politics continues. Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, said that Wikipedia neither criticizes nor supports other governments. Because the "neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The remaining two major policies are "verifiable" and "non-original research." Together, these guidelines establish the type and quality of content that can be accepted by Wikipedia entries. 



I think Wikipedia is not a website for political dissidents or government supporters. Wikipedia's policy of neutral views is unwavering. Blocking Wikipedia if they refuse to censor will be a great irony to the censors, because Wikipedia is not the target of any kind of censorship they claim; censoring Wikipedia is tantamount to admitting that it is the fact that it is neutral facts that scares them. 


2) Interesting point

I want to use cases to introduce points that I think are interesting. The case is about the language used by a certain indigenous people. The Australian Aboriginal Language Center of Tasmania claimed to have the ownership of a language called "palawa kani", and Wikipedia's introduction to this language infringed copyright. But Wikipedia believes that even the copyright protection law cannot prohibit people from using a certain language or conducting normal discussions on a certain language. This requirement of the language center will only affect the freedom of speech and the opening of research and education work, so Wikipedia refuses to delete posts. Wikipedia is the content that people all over the world write, upload, and edit together. Only users have the final decision on the page.  Wikipedia’s refusal to censor guarantees people’s right to knowledge and education. Just like the constitution of freedom of speech in every country, it guarantees people the right to freedom of speech.


3）Discussion point

So Wikipedia refuses to censor, how do you view the correctness and authority of Wikipedia?





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