W9 blog topic: Discuss Reagle’s chapters 3-4 - ChaeHyeon Lee

1. Summary
Reagle’s chapter 3-4 is about Wikipedia's collaborative culture and openness. Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. Collaboration in Wikipedia is a process of co-creation. In Wikipedia, you can see the 'red link'. The red link is a page that has not been filled yet. This link represents a request to others to fill the link. Also, it offers several ways to promote Wikipedia's collaboration. Networking technologies and related collaborative technologies enable openness and accessibility, thereby increasing people's social responsibility. In Wikipedia, there are behaviors that users must follow. Even if you disagree with your opponent's opinion, you should respect your opponent's Wikipedia. Not all users should generalize their personal interests. Be open to accepting it. In other words, it is the core of the Wikipedia collaborative culture to focus on expressing neutrality.
 
Wikipedia is an example of an  open content community. Openness is characterized by an accessible and flexible type of collaboration. The open content community is open content, transparency, integrity, non-discrimination, and non-interference. While Wikipedia is free and open, it limits both freedom and openness that can interfere Wikipedia policy or culture. This is for the order of Wikipedia. This means that it is necessary to have appropriate freedom and control, not indiscreet openness. A way to maintain a balance of openness and closeness can be called a successful open system.
 
2. Interesting things
New contributors are prospective “members” and are therefore our most valuable resource.
This sentence is interesting. Contributors are the most important in Wikipedia. Without them, Wikipedia does not operate normally. They are creating Wikipedia for participation. Among them, new Wikipedia contributors will become increasingly important. New contributors are essential for the further development of Wikipedia. Times are constantly changing. As the times change, new changes are also needed in Wikipedia. I think changes will be made by new contributors rather than those already accustomed to Wikipedia policy and culture. That's why Wikipedia needs to make efforts to get new contributors to participate in Wikipedia.
 
3. Discussion
“A productive contributor who cannot collaborate is not a productive contributor.”
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that utilizes collective intelligence. In other words, this sentence means that the culture of collaboration in Wikipedia is an important factor in determining the future of Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia, where collaboration and openness coexist, is an structure in which there is no other choice but to have productive contributors who cannot collaborate. While Wikipedia needs collaboration, openness means that anyone can be anonymous. I would like to discuss the situation where these two are in conflict.

Comments

  1. 허연주(Yeonju Heo)May 4, 2018 at 10:03 AM

    Everyone can be anonymous, but I don't think they can be completely anonymous. Those who do not subscribe to Wikipedia have IP instead of ID when editing. It is anonymous, but his information is available if he is tracked. In particular, in this information age, full anonymity is difficult. Therefore, users should always remember this and not make bad edits behind anonymity. Anonymity only allows people to be more free when they write. I also think that anonymity helps cooperation. If you write Wikipedia under your real name, you may not want to cooperate with someone who has once been in conflict. Therefore, I think anonymity helps cooperation in these areas.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

W3. Why do you think people use Wikipedia? Why do others write for it? - Sun bo Sim

 Why do you think people use Wikipedia? Why do others write for it? 1. Summary It is quite natural that the main purpose people use Wikipedia is to get information. So I thought about why people choose Wikipedia for getting information. I think the first reason is the reliability of information in Wikipedia. We have many other sources of getting information. We can search for information scattered on the web through search tools such as Google or Naver. But we do not have the ability to ensure that such data are reliable. However, people prefer Wikipedia because it looks at its slogan " The Free Encyclopedia, " believing it may have the character of an encyclopedia. I also believe that Wikipedia's credibility is enhanced by the fact that its information is constantly being edited through the process of collective intelligence. 2. Interesting Point Most people use Wikipedia to get information. However, some people like to make new articles and give information s...
Read more

W5. Can we trust Wikipedia? Yun-Jin Kim

Then I want to ask. Can we trust News? I think Wikipedia is based on sources. Every time we edit on Wikipedia we need the sources. If we don’t put sources, the information we wrote would be deleted.   So I think asking ‘How can we trust Wikipedia’ is kind of similar to ‘How can we trust News’. I know there could be subjective opinion on Wikipedia. If the topic is unpopular, the public opinion doesn’t focus, there’s could be no feedback and that makes Wiki subjective. for this reason, we have to think before we choose the topic in Wiki. If the topic isn’t famous enough and have no sources, we should think this information isn’t sure enough. but if the topic has clear sources we can have a trust on that information. I think it is not important to ask, ‘is the Wikipedia trustful’. It is important to ask ‘is this information on Wikipedia has a exact source?’.
Read more

W6. How important is it to be civil online on the Internet?-Ji Young An

These days lots of controversial problems are rising. And because of those problems, people fight on the Internet. But I think most of problems happen because of a lack of civic attitudes. As I highlighted the discussion section of Wikipedia last post, talking together with having civic attitudes is very important point. On the Internet lots of people meet. And this means all of them has different thinking and experiences different cultures. So it is certain that everyone's opinion is different. But I think from this difference, the collective intelligence comes. So I think this difference is very important. But sadly, because of this difference some people fight, just arguing their opinion is one hundred percent right. This attitude is nothing good to our collective intelligence. To develop collective intelligence, people need the civic attitudes. Not just persisting stubbornly they should talk and listen, trying to understand other people. If they talk their opinion or thinking...
Read more