W9 blog topic: Discuss Reagle’s chapters 3-4 - Yeonju Heo

1. Summary

Chapters 3 and 4 describe the collaborative culture of Wikipedia and its various features - openness, transparency, open communities, and so on. Collaboration creates shared meaning and enables openness and accessibility. Also, it can increase the accountability of new arrivals. In Wikipedia, people collaborate to complete an encyclopedia. In the process, people should maintain objectivity. Wikipedia is not a place to write personal opinions or experiences. Everyone can edit Wikipedia, but they must follow the code of conduct. People should respect each other with open mind, discuss and work according to the rules. There is a technology in Wikipedia that can return articles at any time without fear of permanent damage. So users can be patient and edited without the stress of damage. This article also mentions the bias that exists in Wikipedia. In Wikipedia, there are article bias and editors' gender bias. Wikipedia is trying to solve this problem. Although not completely resolved, we can expect to improve because everyone own Wikipedia(common target).
 

2. Interesting points

I was familiar with Wikipedia's rules and collaborative culture because I learned it in class. However, there were impressive sentences in familiar content. The first is “A productive contributor who cannot collaborate is not a productive contributor.” No matter how productive a contributor is, it is not a collective intelligence if they do not cooperate. It is just a boast of their knowledge and makes Wikipedia theirs own book, not an encyclopedia of all. The second impressive sentence is "Trolls are the driving force of Wikipedia." A troll is a person who "writes negative or inflammatory writings and comments on the Internet." The trolls stimulate the editors to make better articles. I thought the trolls were negative. So it was interesting that they could work positively. Of course, if we only look at the existence itself, 'A productive contributor who can not collaborate' is better than 'trolls'. But it was beneficial to know that there were both positive and negative aspects in these two beings.
 

3. Discussion points

Although trolls can encourage user edits, we can not neglect negatively. As noted in chapter 4, the problematic users take good users away from Wikipedia. So what should we do with the troll? Is the troll a necessary evil or is it to be completely eliminated? What are some ways to completely eliminate troll?

Comments

  1. manglowoMay 5, 2018 at 9:08 AM

    Trolls are not fundamentally good. It itself is a negative thing to remove. Of course it encourages other users to make edits, but in the first place it causes edits to be flawed. There is a need for rules within Wikipedia to sanction trolls, and there is a need for effort among users to prevent them.

    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