W5/Do you think Wikipedia is right to reject censorship?/HARI KIM

 Do you think Wikipedia is right to reject censorship?


Wikipedia is a space where anyone freely participates and everyone creates an encyclopedia. Therefore, if censorship is conducted, the freedom to edit and the right to know information will disappear. It is also difficult to objectively make the standards for censorship. It is hard to exclude individual values in creating censorship standards, and political views can be reflected and used for political purposes. Therefore, 'censorship' that blocks information in advance is not right. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that we all make, so I think we should freely participate and create information.

Of course, fake or distorted information within Wikipedia needs to be deleted. Only reliable information should be left behind by countless participants in Wikipedia who modify and delete inappropriate information. This is the principle that only appropriate information remains in Wikipedia. 

In conclusion, regulation through censorship is not right because inappropriate information will be edited by the power of collective intelligence in Wikipedia. Censorship will have many different side effects. Wikipedia is right to reject censorship.

Comments

  1. Lee ye han (이예한)April 3, 2021 at 6:01 AM

    I could relate to many parts of the writing. In particular, I agree that censorship that blocks information in advance is not right, and that it is right to refuse censorship because the standards of censorship can be used reflecting political purposes. If we censor Wikipedia, I think the vision and identity of the site that everyone participates freely can be violated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. HARI KIM 김하리April 4, 2021 at 4:34 AM

      Thank you for your opinion. It's interesting that Wikipedia's vision is a site where everyone participates freely. Wikipedia has a lot of meaning in the encyclopedia that we make together, so censoring will have a lot of negativity

      Delete
  2. JeongYoon OhApril 5, 2021 at 6:31 AM

    I agree with the opinion that we are against censorship! One thing I'm curious about is that it may not be easy to say that the distorted facts are corrected through collective intelligence. Because distorted and inappropriate information violates ethical and legal standards and may lead to everyone's approval in deleting it, but it may be unclear whether it is inappropriate or not. Many people admit that it is inappropriate, but it cannot be considered inappropriate information unconditionally. In order to solve this problem, even if we try to create a clear standard for judging inappropriate information, I think censorship may be included in the process of creating a standard. There won't be an answer. This will be Wikipedia's eternal homework.

    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

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