w7:Good Faith Collaboration｜LiuXinlei


 This book describes the establishment of Wikipedia in great detail. But it is not just to explain Wikipedia as a single individual, but to use Wikipedia as a starting point or as a trigger to discuss the changes in collective wisdom in the development of the Internet in recent years. In these 8 chapters, most of the problems in collective wisdom are discussed using Wikipedia as a carrier.

interesting part

This book is about Wikipedia culture and accurately describes the social cultural and socio-technical phenomenon of Wikipedia. But I personally think that he raised too many questions about Wikipedia, about neutrality and editing. I think the interesting part is that he mentioned that Wikipedia may bring disputes, but Wikipedia has no effective way to avoid disputes in this area. In the future development of Wikipedia, I expect Wikipedia to find a key point to balance the two.

what I learnd

While a large number of volunteers participate in Wikipedia, we are also worried that the participation of a large number of non-professionals will make it difficult to maintain the professionalism of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's distinction between professional and amateur is beginning to blur. At the same time, I learned how to solve the problem of decision-making consensus. As a kind of collective wisdom, Wikipedia receives attention naturally because of its popularity, but on the other hand, it does provide some solutions for future collective wisdom in terms of decision-making and dispute resolution of certain group consciousness to offer some methods to refer to.


Comments

  1. JeongYoon OhApril 15, 2021 at 8:46 AM

    I agree that Wikipedia can be dangerous because of the growing gap between professionals and amateurs, but I have a more positive view. Even if I only know a very small piece of information in a particular article, that information can be very important to someone. You can participate even if you're not an expert, and don't you think that little information from so many people is coming together to create a perfect document? Of course, there are cases when someone writes an error, but I'd like to exclude it because it was a bad approach to ruin the article, not because it was an amateur.

    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