week6 - after reading

1.
Wikipedia, and the cooperative way in which Wikipedia is created, are at the center of heated debate. References can inspire passionate commitment to contributors, but they can inspire seemingly passionate disparagement. In 2004, Michael Gorman, former president of the American Library Association, wrote a critical article about Google and its book scanning project. He was surprised by the negative online response to his work, but this doubled his attacks only a few years later. Despite Sanger's apostasy from the central tenets of Wikipedia faith and establishing resources based on expertise, the rest continue to add to the resentment of many fundamentally flawed professors and school teachers and intellectually lazy to use.

2.
Education is a matter of learning, knowledge, and respect for human records. The professor who encourages the use of Wikipedia is an intellectual equivalent of a nutritionist who recommends Big Mac's steady diet along with everything. He's tougher than the others, but he's not alone. As can be seen in the introduction to this chapter, Wikipedia itself is aware of the dizziness caused by the increase in quality ahead of expectations. In this chapter I review some of the criticism Wikipedia faces regarding the themes of collaborative practice, universal vision, encyclopedic impulses, and technical inspiration.

3.
Wikipedia, like other previous references, has sparked social concerns about technological and social change. This raises the question of whether Wikipedia is a representative of a new type of content production that is changing the role of individuals, the nature of cultural products, and the authority and viability of established cultural institutions. Many referential arguments are developed to the extent to which references appear prescriptive, i.e., acquiescence of the subject and source in some way. For example, shouldn't national dictionaries avoid words borrowed from popular slang or other languages? However, when the difficult task of compiling a dictionary is completed, he apologized in the preface to "those who are persuaded to think well of my design, and those who demand that it corrects our language"?.


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