w5:The Challenges of Consensus|LiuXinlei

 Wikipedia is the representative website of the open knowledge community in the world today. It is its openness that has brought the success of its current platform and brought relatively rich knowledge resources. However, as mentioned in its article, it has A certain degree of ambiguity, for many sensitive content, it will choose a relatively objective statement, or choose to hide it. This is a way to try to avoid disputes on the platform, and it also brings more objections. At the same time, it is precisely because of the wide range of participants that even anonymous users can participate in the editing, which also brings great challenges to the future development of Wikipedia.

I think there is a very interesting point about this. While some people in Wikipedia believe that building a group is beneficial to Wikipedia, another part believes that building a group will only make the position in Wikipedia extreme. But in the most basic concept of Wikipedia, Wikipedia exists as an open knowledge community, but now people are arguing whether the group is beneficial to the neutralization of information.

Regarding the future development of Wikipedia, I think that although the content of the knowledge platform is very rich, there are still barriers to information between various countries. It is not only the barriers to network interception, but there are often great differences in content in different languages. It is hard to say that this is in line with Wikipedia's rules of neutral and objective information, but it still needs a lot of improvement in management and editing.









Comments

  1. HARI KIM 김하리April 4, 2021 at 4:44 AM

    I agree that Wikipedia has barriers to information between countries. Considering English and Korean wiki, there are many differences between the contents of the two sites. This may be contrary to Wikipedia's neutral and objective information rules. Therefore, I think it needs to be improved.

    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