W6 : Who write Wikipedia?

According to Wikipedia's Community Engagement Insights in 2017, many of Wikipedia's editors are in their 40s economically rich European men who speak English.  

  The Wikipedia editor I inferred is as follows.

  First, Wikipedia editors seem to be people who want to create 'synergy' through collaboration. Wikipedia has the characteristic that anyone can participate, but no one owns it. The information edited by oneself is re-edited by someone to reduce errors. It seems that the editors of Wikipedia are those who believe in and appreciate the possibility of synergy between these partners. 

  Second, Wikipedia editors will be those who are actively learning and trying to organize them. I first encountered Wikipedia while taking the Collective Intelligence class. If I hadn't taken this class, I wouldn't have been able to act as an editor for Wikipedia. But among those who don't take this class, I know the Wikipedia editor. I'm going to describe him and guess the Wikipedia editor. He is very curious and does not neglect to learn. And he often organizes and posts the information he has learned on his social network service. Therefore, Wikipedia editors are likely to have characteristics that they like to organize what they have learned and do not mind sharing with others.

▶︎ Discussion point

The proportion of female Wikipedia editors is significantly lower than that of men. What are the ways to increase the number of female Wikipedia editors?

Comments

  1. Hyeonsu jeongApril 11, 2021 at 7:04 AM

    I think mechanical neutrality acts as an obstacle to woman and social minority. If discrimination prevails, there are many negative descriptions of topics that women or social minorities will sympathize with. It can be checked easily by searching feminism agenda in Wikipedia(first of all, in Korea). So, how to increase woman's contribution is same with how to decrease social bias.

    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