W6: Do you think Wikipedia is right to reject censorship?

 Summarize

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia doesn't contain all data on the internet. Unlike the motto of Wikipedia is “Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.” The targets for deletion are as follows: nonsense, advertising/spam, vandalism, copyright violation/plagiarism, …

Moreover, there are some rules in Wikipedia. Wikipedia avoid original research, promotion, mass collection of information.

 

Interesting thing

I am interested in the basis of advertising/spam. At the root, writing about something maybe promoting the object. The reason for writing in the open space is to inform it. I thought it might be difficult to distinguish between well-made advertisement and Wikipedia article.

 

Discussion Point-Do you think Wikipedia is right to reject censorship?

I think a certain level of censorship is necessary. The word ‘censorship’ already contains negative connotations. So, reject censorship sounds good. However, we can consider the contents of had not censored in Wikipedia.

·        Wikipedia may contain triggers for people with post-traumatic stress disorder.

·        Wikipedia may contain images and videos which can trigger epileptic seizures and other medical conditions.

These are some of Wikipedia’s content disclaimer items.(reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer)

Providing information is important. However, we need to think about accessibility of Wikipedia. Because of Wikipedia is a place that are accessible to everyone. It means even if 5-years old child can access ANY Wikipedia article if he connects with internet. Anyone who too young to understand text or who has a low literacy can access Wikipedia. So, some contents may not be enough to write trigger warning. I think this is responsibility for the open space.

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