W9 blog topic: Discuss Reagle’s chapters 3-4 HanBin Bae

1.summary
 
Openness to Wikipedia has advantages and disadvantages. Wikipedia is openly accessible and specific to a flexible type of collaboration. It is wise to follow rules that ignore rules.
Wikipedia is an example of an open content community. However, it may be difficult to balance the freedom of the press with other issues such as the safety of people and the project itself, as well as the relevant value of transparency, integrity and non-discrimination.
Boundaries are a fundamental feature of all communities, even those who aspire to openness. Even theoretically perfect openness can lead to non-embracing behavioral and informal structures.
Systems that can not find a way to balance openness and closure or that can not be compliant will fail.
 
2.Interesting Point
 
Because openness allows someone to enter information maliciously, accuracy and fairness are often controversial. However, Wikipedia does not simply provide the information that is listed, but it has attracted attention by converting information into one-dimensional knowledge through collective intelligence. Those who pay attention to openness and commonality are evaluated as "the coming of the collective intellect" and the "democratization of knowledge" On the other hand, the people who are meeting the credibility of information brand as "a tool of diffusion of anti-communism and intellectual populism". There is good and bad in everything, and there is name and cancer. Of course, it can be tilted to either side. The one who overcomes both sides and shines becomes the winner. By reading this article, I think I saw the light on Wikipedia.


3.Discussion
 
Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. This means that currently unregistered, ie anonymous users can edit any material. Openness and anonymous editing by rules and rules in Wikipedia alone are an important part of Wikipedia's identity. This is the greatest strength and source of the current Wikipedia. However, even if the rule exists, it is not maintained in a great many parts. Anyone can edit it, so the reliability of information will not be high. What should I do to solve this problem? Whether Wikipedia is really editable by anyone, the legitimacy of office activities, and the effect of bureaucracy are important, but discussions on how to deal with these shortcomings are also important.

Comments

  1. Helena FronczakMay 3, 2018 at 7:01 AM

    I think you’ve made a good point question yourself about this, because anonymity comes usually comes with unaccountability.
    When people create an account, it is possible to trace them, send them a message and explain why this or that was not conform to wikipedia sets of rules.
    But what if things gets out of hand because of anonymous editors just like the primary school student example.
    On the other hand restricting the editing to just the owners of an account is against the open content rules.
    Here, education and information are key so that people don’t take wikipedia project for a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jiwon ChoMay 4, 2018 at 12:15 PM

    I agree with you. Managing people is very difficult. If so, it would be meaningful for them to become open societies by choosing carefully selected people.

    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