W7 : Good Faith Collaboration : The Culture of Wikipedia / 박소민(SOMIN PARK)

 1. Summary

This book presents the characteristics of Wikipedia and its users, explaining how Wikipedia has become a successful open encyclopedia through good faith collaboration. More specifically, while examining various Wikipedia articles and problems within Wikipedia, the author explains how good faith collaboration can occur and problems can be solved. 

2. Interesting / Useful point

Last week, I saw many students talking about Wikipedia's gender problem : the lack of female users. Interestingly, this book said the same thing about it as we commented on the problem. But, contrary to the book's implication that the problem will be solved positively, the problem is still not being solved and Wikipedia still have the problem for a long time.   

3. What I learned from reading it

I learned about the process of developing cooperative culture into collective intelligence. Just as people gathered and changed society from a hierarchical one to a democratic one, such disputes continue constantly within Wikipedia, and eventually only what most people think is right remains. Eventually, this change in society or within Wikipedia is caused by good faith collaboration.  

Comments

  1. WANG XIAOLINGApril 16, 2021 at 10:50 PM

    Anyone can write or edit for Wikipedia, and I think this is both an advantage and a disadvantage—especially in terms of gender. For example, the "New York Times" article pointed out its huge gender imbalance, and at least one review article claimed that Wikipedia discriminated against female novelists. Other publications also pointed out racial prejudice. So I think one of the ways to solve this problem is to include many famous women.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Park Chan Young (박찬영)April 17, 2021 at 7:11 AM

    In my opinion, it has been a long time since we talked about gender discrimination in society, but overall, gender issues still have many things to be solved and the pace of improvement is slow. The same seems to be true of Wikipedia. What's important is whether Wikipedia is willing to improve, but slow or blindfolded.

    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