W9. Discuss Reagle's chapters 3 and 4 - Jong Hoon Park



In fact, I think Wikipedia is great in itself for seeking openness. Wikipedia is well worth being praised for making an attempt that no one has made. Being open to anyone actually puts the negative factors first. However, Wikipedia has crossed many unique issues. In fact, I think this is the most necessary part.

There are many people all over the world, and the information they produce and consume on the Internet is unimaginable. In addition, some produce really big information. Under these circumstances, an attempt to free their platform would have been necessary if not an encyclopedia. A platform where many people can see and freely discuss and revise it. Nevertheless, many people now visit the wiki when they want to find some information on the web. That is also reliable information. This is an amazing phenomenon. Open source, open source information is considered the most reliable information. So many people are currently using and consuming the wiki. This is an undeniable fact.

So openness is not necessarily bad, but there is a reason why most people are worried. What negative intent wouldn't a person ruin an article? Don't you think it's a sham that doesn't have any expertise, but rather a common sense of self? A notion What do you think about these problems? Do you think Wikipedia's current system considers this well and solves the problem?


2012047790 박종훈

Comments

  1. UnknownMay 5, 2018 at 9:35 AM

    I read your post well. I also thought about the problem of people who maliciously write articles. We know that Wikipedia currently has a system that allows discussion and quick feedback to improve it. However, there is a lack of ways to prevent further and seems to require more complement.

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownMay 6, 2018 at 1:52 AM

    At first, I thought Wikipedia could not systematically respond to the problem you mentioned. But I think Wikipedia is responding better than I thought through a few edits. In spite of a reference link to each paragraph In addition to this, In fact, there was a warning message in my edited article demanding greater professionalism. I have often seen many other postings with warning messages. So I think Wikipedia is actively receiving professional feedback. However, the warning message raises doubts about the level of professionalism in the posting.

    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