W9: Thoughts after reading "Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia". WANG XIAOLING, 왕효령

 1) Summary

Wikipedia has many tools for contributors (and a few more for administrators only) to combat vandalism. Supporters of Wikipedia believe that the vast majority of attacks can be detected and corrected in a short period of time. However, this is not inevitable. Destructions such as clearing pages and adding offensive images are easy to correct in a short period of time, but many destructive behaviors can be retained for longer. For example, a user recently added extremely racist content to en:Martin Luther King Day several times, but they were not corrected until almost 4 hours later. In the current version of Wikipedia, there are also several defamatory, unfounded or obviously false claims that have existed for a long time. The Seigenthaler incident is by far the most famous example.

2) The new knowledge point

Supporters of Wikipedia often claim that undetected acts of sabotage are mainly related to low-profile items. Most undetected destructive edits are made by registered users because their edits are less subject to review than anonymous users.

3) Discussion point

In addition, discovery of damage is an important issue. Most damages are discovered through "recent changes". If there are obviously destructive content that is not discovered by those who monitor the damage on this page, they may be within a few weeks or even months. Still not noticed. Do you think there is any solution?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

W7: GFC book notes By 'William S. Kowinski' , 'Cory Doctorow','Piotr Konieczny' and 'Paul Youngquist'/ 진신

Summary- William S. Kowinski: The true exception is the innovative success of a collaborative effort that has prime online reference work called Wikipedia. This book is not meant to be biography or reportage, but contemporary ethnography or study of a culture. What this book does well is describe how Wikipedia works and what issues have arisen.  It's short on drama and personality，and so it's probably destined to be a source document. Since that seems unlikely, this may remain the best opportunity for learning about this remarkable project. Summary- Cory Doctorow: Reagle makes an excellent case that this assumption of good faith is particularly powerful when it comes to dealing with those who lack good faith — it creates positive outcomes for arguments with everyone from neo-Nazis to political hacks who're whitewashing their boss's entries. Wikipedia's most fascinating and unprecedented aspect isn't the encyclopedia itself — rather, it's the collaborative cu...
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

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