week5 - after reading

1.
Wikipedia is certainly misleading in a conflicting world, some documented, and some unique to one's business. An example of an infectious real conflict is the "creation-evolution debate" discussed in Chapter 3. In addition, political and racial differences are often reflected in Wikipedia to form a "working group on racial and cultural editorial warfare". If there is an article in every episode of a television show, how should these articles be named so that they do not collide with other articles? This discussion reveals possible misunderstandings of consensus and difficulties in decision-making practices in open communities.

2.
I think this compares with the literature's insights into consensus in other communities, including communities that have built the Internet and the Web using Quakers and "thorough consensus and execution codes". Many things in the history of encyclopedias have been made up of attempts to organize knowledge and how their dreams were eventually replaced in simple alphabetical order. Wikipedia continued this trend by avoiding formal organizational systems and allowing people to label articles as appropriate. Computer scientists call this "conflict," which is becoming increasingly common as the number of Wikipedia articles increases.

3.
In the event of a conflict, Wikipedia will provide the reader with a "explicit" link at the top of the article, or a full page with a list of links to more specific articles or two articles. "Discrimination in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single title can be associated with more than one article. However, should this ambiguity be applied in all cases for consistency or only if there is already an entry? Answering this question, and thousands of others, is an integral part of Wikipedia collaboration. As the Consensus policy stated, the agreement is the "way in which editors work with others" and is the "basic model of Wikipedia's editorial decision making." So, what is an agreement, and how do you know you've reached it? This question eventually reached the Arbitration Committee.

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