W4. Discuss Reagle's Chapters 1-2. - JiWon Min

 
1. Summary
 
 The previous reference books before Wikipedia distanced from institutions, people, and discussions. But Wikipedia is not. It is not just an online multilingual encyclopedia, it is a community and encyclopedia. Wikipedia always plays a role in demonstrating the community's successive conversations. Most importantly, these conversations reveal the collective culture - " good luck ". So, how do we understand this culture? 

 Wikipedia's culture can be traced to a collaborative culture, which is based on three central policies. " Neutral Point Of View (NPOV.), " " No Original Research, " and " Verifiability. " A neutral perspective may initially seem to be incompatible with neutral knowledge. The two different policies " No Original Research " and " Verifiability. " mean that " all Wikipedia materials must be based on reliable and open-source sources. "

 The projects discussed in this chapter are an attempt to realize the general vision of reaching a global consensus over the inclusion of the goodwill of the partner companies. So, as a conclusion, it addresses Predicting the Future, Reading the Past. This chapter considered those looking back, those looking forward, and those struggling in their present to implement a universal encyclopedic vision.

 First, the vision that is not realized, the projects that have failed, and even the wrong predictions tell us about the historians and their time. In this chapter, the history of Interpedia, Nupedia, GNUPedia/GNE, The Web, and Wikis and so on describe a continuous and attractive concept of general encyclopedia about human knowledge production and distribution.

 Secondly, this chapter constantly asks why it took so long to realize the vision. A possible answer can be detected in the overlapping spheres of vision, pragmatics, and happenstance. The best example is the decentralization of the Web. Once it is clear that the Web will be the platform for such an encyclopedia, it will be decentralized. However, According to prediction of Wales, Ward Cunningham, Wikipedia does have limitations as it is partially focused. That's because it has made it possible to edit the Web to the public again. 
 
 
2. Interesting point
  
 I found it interesting that it took a lot of history, technology and policies to create Wikipedia's " anyone can edit " culture. It is because although I thought this culture is unique, I could not think of innovation. As I learned about this sequence of processes, I felt that it was an opportunity for " intelligent creativity " in itself to enjoy this culture. 
 

3. Discussion
  
 Is Wikipedia's " anyone can edit " culture really coming true? And can this information be shared with all of humanity? 

 First, typically, creating knowledge through Wikipedia requires writing skills and information gathering skills. Isn't this a privilege given only to those who have a certain level of intelligence and know how to use the Internet properly? 

 Second, Although translation techniques have improved in recent years, there are still barriers to language. Under these circumstances, how many people will be able to understand writing in languages other than their own? 

 So, is it feasible for Wikipedia to pursue " a world in which every human being can freely share the sum of all knowledge? " I'm afraid it is impossible even for the first reason. What do you think?

Comments

  1. UnknownApril 1, 2018 at 12:36 AM

    I agree with you with the " anyone can edit " culture is really difficult to implement because everyone don't have the writing skills requires. But Wikipedia as a community can help those people to share their knowledge even if they don't have the level of intelligence. You have many solution on that on wikipedia. You can create a Wikiproject before editing an article, ask if the subject is notable, talk with many people who will help you to write your article in the right way.
    So, even if seems that anyone can't edit on wiki due to the writing skills of the level of intelligence, I still believe that anyone can write on wikipedia, they just need some help. And the Wikipedia community is here for that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownApril 1, 2018 at 4:36 AM

    I agree on that. The point is that it can only be edited by a small group of people with Internet knowledge, but Wikipedia is now one of the most reasonable ways to create an encyclopedia. Many people read, edit, and gain knowledge on Wikipedia. In the process, people with a lot of knowledge will eventually be interested in the editing process, and people will be more interested in editing it. Eventually, more people can naturally participate in creating the encyclopedia called Wikipedia than anyone interested in making it. I think this is one of the great advantages.

    -Jong Hoon Park (박종훈)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

W5. Can we trust Wikipedia? - Seron Kim

Wikipedia is a large site used by people all over the world. People get information through Wikipedia and edit article directly when needed. Through the action of collective intelligence, Wikipedia is becoming more and more developed and growing. Can we trust Wikipedia? I think "We can trust Wikipedia but we should not trust it unconditionally.“   Obviously Wikipedia is reliable. Wikipedia itself has an implicit framework for editing, and people follow it and use it. It is also possible to increase the trust of the article by leaving a source for the information, and to delete the edited information through a predetermined process. So there will be more and more reliable information in Wikipedia.   But you should not trust Wikipedia unconditionally. Because there may be misinformation in Wikipedia. Of course, there is a high possibility that it will be fixed through the deletion function of Wikipedia and the collective intelligence of people. But it will be a ...
Read more

W1. What do I know about Wikipedia and what do I want to learn about it? - Yong il, Seon.

We learned another idea, we want an easy explanation.          Many people used Wikipedia. Why people visited Wikipedia? I have much thought about the answer to this question. Everyone will be editor in Wikipedia. So, several people’s opinions can be confirmed on one issue. It is also an important characteristic of democracy. Democracy is the recognition of the other’s ideas. And already in France, there were ‘Tolerance’. It means that As I am right in my opinion, and so you are right in your opinion. I think Wikipedia is making ‘Tolerance idea’ work very well. So, you can not force your own ideas on Wikipedia. Depending on the situation, users may be students, teachers, or even completely different third parties. From these points of view, Wikipedia is the modern version of Greece’s Agora.            And it is not over. Always people want an easy expanation, the more complex the case. Wikipedia has a structured form...
Read more

W2. My first edits. Describe why you made them. - Seron Kim

I rarely had access to Wikipedia before this class. Because there is a service called 'Knowledge in' operated by Naver in Korea. I've been used to the 'Knowledge in' for a long time, so I've always used it if there's something I don't know. However, I got to know Wikipedia in this class. Wikipedia has a much larger volume of data than I thought, and it is being used by people all over the world. Also, anyone could edit information. I want to search and edit my favorite soccer information. So I decided to do the editing on my idols, Ko Jong-soo and Nadson.   What was interesting about editing was that although the Korean Wikipedia was detailed by the players who played in the Korean league, the English Wikipedia had little or no information. So I want to edit more. Because I want to add their information to English Wikipedia to let people around the world know.   Different countries have Wikipedia sites and the amount and quality of informati...
Read more