W1. Readings, Cho jiwon
1.Summary
Ten years ago, no one, including founder Jimmy Wales, could have imagined the realization of "Wikipedia". Now Wikipedia is one of the best websites on the Internet. Wikipedia is a "collaborative community" that allows people to freely and voluntarily provide knowledge. Wikipedia has given broader authority over information than any democracy.
But interest in Wikipedia was not enthusiastic from the start. Even 'digerati' did not care about Wikipedia over seven years. But now, without going through Wikipedia, we can not understand anything new.
Wikipedia is a community formed through collaborative work. Wikipedia is far from the previous generation with the goal of “a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.” But for the first time in 10 years, this aspiration has made it possible for everyone.
To understand this phenomenon, we need to know a lot of disciplines. But the root of all this understanding is ethnography. Understanding ethnography makes it possible to learn properly through Wikipedia.
2.Interesting point
Interestingly, it is about ethnography, because it is the first word I read when reading this article. As a result of reading the article, 'ethnography' is 'a technical description of the lifestyle of a particular person'. However, because the technical explanation is also analytical, ethnography is used by social anthropologists in the broad sense of a detailed study of the lifestyle of a particular nation. Given the nature of this 'ethnography', it seems that Wikipedia considers a wide area of speciality. Information can be described differently depending on the editors, and concepts can also be interpreted differently depending on the specificity of the concept. Wikipedia seems to put 'ethnography' as a fundamental concept in order to make this particularity more easily considered.
3.Discussion point
Ethnography can help explain the specificity, but I think it can be poisoned. As an example, when I wrote Wikipedia in last year's class, the content you wrote without special mention has disappeared. It was a situation that I could not understand as an editor. When I think of it, I thought it was the right thing to do, but the content is gone because it is different from the idea of the Wikipedia authority. I think this is a matter of 'difference' about ethnography, but Wikipedia seems to interpret it as a problem of 'right and wrong'.
I think that the repetition of these phenomena can weaken the power of collective intelligence. I wonder what the students think.
Ten years ago, no one, including founder Jimmy Wales, could have imagined the realization of "Wikipedia". Now Wikipedia is one of the best websites on the Internet. Wikipedia is a "collaborative community" that allows people to freely and voluntarily provide knowledge. Wikipedia has given broader authority over information than any democracy.
But interest in Wikipedia was not enthusiastic from the start. Even 'digerati' did not care about Wikipedia over seven years. But now, without going through Wikipedia, we can not understand anything new.
Wikipedia is a community formed through collaborative work. Wikipedia is far from the previous generation with the goal of “a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.” But for the first time in 10 years, this aspiration has made it possible for everyone.
To understand this phenomenon, we need to know a lot of disciplines. But the root of all this understanding is ethnography. Understanding ethnography makes it possible to learn properly through Wikipedia.
2.Interesting point
Interestingly, it is about ethnography, because it is the first word I read when reading this article. As a result of reading the article, 'ethnography' is 'a technical description of the lifestyle of a particular person'. However, because the technical explanation is also analytical, ethnography is used by social anthropologists in the broad sense of a detailed study of the lifestyle of a particular nation. Given the nature of this 'ethnography', it seems that Wikipedia considers a wide area of speciality. Information can be described differently depending on the editors, and concepts can also be interpreted differently depending on the specificity of the concept. Wikipedia seems to put 'ethnography' as a fundamental concept in order to make this particularity more easily considered.
3.Discussion point
Ethnography can help explain the specificity, but I think it can be poisoned. As an example, when I wrote Wikipedia in last year's class, the content you wrote without special mention has disappeared. It was a situation that I could not understand as an editor. When I think of it, I thought it was the right thing to do, but the content is gone because it is different from the idea of the Wikipedia authority. I think this is a matter of 'difference' about ethnography, but Wikipedia seems to interpret it as a problem of 'right and wrong'.
I think that the repetition of these phenomena can weaken the power of collective intelligence. I wonder what the students think.
Comments
Post a Comment