W5.2 Do you think Wikipedia is right to reject censorship?

 I have read a report before that Jimmy Wales the founder of Wikipedia, has money but cannot make it. It is because in order to ensure the "purity" of Wikipedia's non-profit nature, its founder, Jimmy Wales, has always deliberately avoided any commercial elements on the site, does not operate as a company, does not accept any form of advertising, and the only "profit model" it means accepting donations like many open source projects. So Wikipedia gave the permission to online volunteers. The emergence of the term censorship will inevitably reduce the autonomy of volunteers, the "purity" of Wikipedia's non-profit nature. Gradually, Wikipedia ran out of original meaning. One of Wikipedia's refusal to censor protects the autonomy and openness of most volunteers in using Wikipedia. 


However, it also makes many volunteers not follow a "good faith collaboration" because they are not censored. What is your view on this?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

W4: What are the pros and cons of using Naver vs Google for research purposes?

W2 : After watching Mitch Resnick’s TED video

W13/After reading “Categorization”/HARI KIM