Blogging through Wikipedia (2023)

  1.  Summary   Wikipedia is an open, free online encyclopedia.It is precisely because of the nature of freedom that Wikipedia's pages are vulnerable to attack, which inevitably leads to "authoritative" forms of leadership.Such rights are distributed among Founders, Admins, ArbCom, and the Board.While Wikipedia culture values editorial egalitarianism rather than administrative responsibility, this does not mean that there is no leader. “ the need for “dictatorship” arises from the difficulty inherent to decision making in large, voluntary, and consensus-oriented communities. While a cabal or dictator might be complained about, so might their absence. ” While such a form of leadership can quickly deter and interfere with destructive editing, it is two-sided, and it also raises the problem of abuse of power.Some managers have difficulty maintaining absolute neutrality in the face of problems, and selfish approaches can even lead to unnecessary disputes.So the author argues

 1.Summary explains leadership in the Wikipedia community through the examples of Wales and Sanger. Wales demonstrated leadership through four factors: humility, politeness, patience and willingness to apologise. In the case of Saeng-eo, he was an unofficial manager of Wikipedia, but the same role no longer exists after he left the organization. This is because with the growth of Wikipedia, we have learned that voting by a large number of communities results in better results than by a small number of managers. The irony of the open community is that Wales has been labeled a benevolent dictator, even though he has handed over a number of his powers to the board. 2.Interesting point It is interesting to be called a dictator due to the nature of the open community, even though the founder has formed a board of directors so that he can proceed with voting, a democratic process, without holding power. 3.Discussion Currently, Wikipedia makes decisions through discussion and voting. Don'

  1. I edited Wikipedia in English to add  Deft. Faker and Deft met as T1 and DRX captains in the Rolled Cup final in the U.S. last November. -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deft_(gamer) - 2. I could see where the T1 and DRX met and proceeded with the game. 3. It is expected that Deft, who became famous for " Junkopma ," will continue to take steps in the future. And it is noteworthy what will happen to his rival, Faker.

   (1) Summary 1 . To pay attention to the Wikipedia editor rules. Although everyone can edit, but most of the theme of the entry of or by one or two editors.Other the editor was corrected a clerical error or something.So in reading attention should be concerned about the references too, when a combination of the two more easy to obtain a complete understanding of content. 2 . Wikipedia content is concise. The content of Wikipedia is concise and to the point. Generally speaking, the creation of Wikipedia entries does not exceed one screen and can only be used as a reference.  Because of such an entry, the editor probably wrote it simply based on his own understanding, and the quality is difficult to guarantee. 3 . View entry history. Click "View History" in the upper right corner.  Especially when looking at articles related to politics.  If there is a major modification recently, even after the modification is revoked (or called rollback), and anti-revoke, etc. (called edit

  1 ， Summary Wikipedia's motto is: "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." This reflects its claim of openness.   If one thinks of Wikipedia as a community. Members of the Wikipedia community share common practices and norms; as we have seen, they share a culture of collaboration.This community has the five characteristics of open content, transparency, integrity, non-discrimination, and non-interference. Openness in this context is described as a type of collaboration that is accessible and flexible. Wikipedia is an example of an open content community . This conceptualisation needs to provide the core values of open content, as well as the implications of bifurcation. However, it may be difficult to balance related values such as transparency, integrity and non-discrimination with other issues such as freedom of expression, the safety of people and the project itself.   2 ， Interesting point The article keeps using community as a metaphor for Wikipedia

 -Summary We need to fully understand the difficulties of consensus decision making and the significance and practice of collaboration on English Wikipedia. Wiktionary's definition of consensus speaks of a "general agreement" that "does not actively oppose the proposed course of action." A more academic source gives a similar definition: consensus is an overwhelming consensus, "which does not imply unanimous agreement". So, in a community with values of equality and a culture of integrity, consensus certainly seems to be an appropriate means of decision-making. Moreover, this form of decision-making has been at the heart of online collaboration since the beginning of the Internet. Humans naturally look for ways to dissect and neatly dispatch difficulties. However, given its reliance on assumptions of good faith and its preference for consensus in decision-making, one can conclude that the Wikipedia community is relatively tolerant of the ambiguity inhe

  [Summary}      This passage discusses the challenges of consensus in the context of the Wikipedia community. Despite its reliance on good faith and consensus decision-making, Wikipedia remains relatively tolerant of the ambiguities inherent in collaborating on a global encyclopedia. The lack of topical and temporal scope, initial lack of facilitation, turnover in membership, and anonymity all contribute to the challenges of consensus practice. The passage highlights several humorous examples of the difficulties of consensus, including a WikiSpeak definition and a tongue-in-cheek answer to the question of how many Wikipedians it takes to change a light bulb. The author acknowledges that Wikipedia has not become the global institution of "adjustment and adjudication" that Wells foresaw but is a fascinating example of community decision-making in a new context. Despite its challenges, Wikipedia is an open content community that trusts in human judgment over the long run. The p

   1. Summary  I believe that administrators and leaders of Wikipedia play an important role in maintaining the quality and accuracy of Wikipedia. They ensure that Wikipedia content meets its quality standards by setting guidelines, reviewing edits, resolving disputes, and providing guidance. However, they will also face challenges and controversies because different editors may have different perspectives and interests. 2. Interesting point The roles of administrator and leader of Wikipedia are established based on the principles of voluntary participation and community governance. Their work is achieved through collaboration and community governance and aims to keep Wikipedia open and impartial. Their goal is to maintain an open, collaborative, and accurate encyclopedia. However, their decisions and actions may also be criticized and disputed because different people may interpret the content and rules differently. Although we always think that Wikipedia adm

1) Summarize of metirals  HG Wells argued that the " W orld  E ncyclopedia" should not only be a repository of information, but also an institution of "adjustment and adjudication" , “ A clearing house of   misunderstandings." Wikipedia itself is of course subject to errors, some imported from the world it records, some unique to itself. In addition, political and racial differences are often reflected in Wikipedia, but there are also two opposing philosophies on Wikipedia: inclusivism and deletionism.  Wik ipedia  defines consensus as "general agreement" with "no active opposition to a proposed course of action." In communities with egalitarian values and a culture of integrity, consensus certainly seems to be an appropriate way to make decisions. Moreover, this form of decision making has been at the heart of online collaboration since the dawn of the Internet. This makes Wikipedia a classic example of community decision-making in today

1 ）  Summary   Wikipedia provides a wide range of information and knowledge for people to find and learn from. Wikipedia's goal is to provide accurate, comprehensive and neutral information so that readers can understand and research different topics. Although Wikipedia is edited collaboratively by volunteers, it is still an important reference tool. This is because Wikipedia's editing process is open and transparent, allowing anyone to view the editing history of a page and track the source of each change. In addition, many articles in Wikipedia have been reviewed and revised by multiple editors to ensure their accuracy and objectivity. However, it is important to note that the information on Wikipedia is not always completely accurate or comprehensive. Therefore, when using Wikipedia as a reference tool, information should be reviewed and verified, and other reliable sources should be sought to confirm the accuracy of the information. It is best to use Wikipedia as a starting

 1. summarize  Ch.5 - H. G. Wells thought the World Encyclopedia should be more than  a repository of information and should be "a clearinghouse of coordination, judgment and misunderstanding."  As an example, the chapter took Chapter 3's 'Creation-Evolution Controversy'. wikipedia initially avoided a formal organizational scheme and allowed users to name articles as they saw fit. However, collisions arose when article titles conflicted, and disambiguation pages were created to resolve these conflicts. Naming conventions were also established for qualifying names with parenthetical suffixes. Consensus is a fundamental model for editorial decision-making on Wikipedia, and the community is supposed to discuss and reason together while assuming good faith and using verifiable sources. In this chapter, we talk about the meaning and practice of consensus decision-making in Wikipedia. He also points out that it features the type of leadership "benevolent dictator.&

1 ）  Summary   Wikipedia allows anyone to edit, and everyone can browse, create, and change the text. Wikipedia is a mixture of democracy, meritocracy and dictatorship.Usually most of the content is discussed and revised by the general public, usually in the form of democracy.At the same time, Wikipedia's system has experienced wikis as administrators responsible for removing vandals and blocking malicious vandals' accounts.On Wikipedia, anyone is usually free to create new entries and edit existing ones, and each one must be voted on to keep them, minimizing errors caused by inadequate knowledge of one or more people. Since Wikipedia allows anyone to edit, there is no guarantee of authenticity or reliability of content; disagreements, controversies, and editorial battles will persist.For bad editing, administrators have the right to delete pages, block articles that are being destroyed, or delete insulting conversations in case of serious community disputes, and even stop viol

  1）  Summary   This article discusses the advantages and disadvantages of Wikipedia's "openness" features. The author gives a detailed description of these five open characteristics.( Open content 、 Transparency 、 Integrity 、 Nondiscrimination 、 Noninterference) “ A central aspiration in the pursuit of a universal encyclopedia is increased access to information: an opening of opportunity and capability to anyone with a desire to learn. ” Open communities allow everyone to learn or express their thoughts on Wikipedia.Open knowledge community is not only an important gathering place for knowledge innovation and sharing, but also a source of wisdom.In such an environment, users are content sharers, creators, and providers of wisdom. “ people don’t even agree about which is which. ”   However, the malicious controversy brought about by such an environment cannot ignore a problem. Everyone's ideas are different, and it is because of the open environment that it is easier

1 ） Summary   Wikipedia can be a useful reference tool, but it is important to use it critically and in conjunction with other sources.Wikipedia is a crowd-sourced encyclopedia, which means that anyone can edit and contribute to its articles. While this allows for a wealth of information to be available on a wide range of topics, it also means that the accuracy and reliability of the information can vary greatly depending on the quality of the contributors and editors.To ensure the accuracy of information found on Wikipedia, it is important to evaluate the sources cited within the article and to check those sources against other reputable sources. Additionally, it can be helpful to look at the edit history of the article to see if there have been any controversial changes or disputes over the information presented. 2 ） Interesting point Wikipedia faces several challenges as an encyclopedia 1. Maintaining accuracy: As a user-generated platform, Wikipedia is vulnerable to inaccurate i

  1. Summary This article introduces that Wikipedia is an open content community, but being open does not mean that all rules can be ignored. The authors collate five characteristics of open content communities: open content, transparency, integrity, non-discrimination, and non-interference. The openness of Wikipedia has advantages and disadvantages. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, including those without a Wiki account. So this leads to constant destruction of Wikipedia, such as robots editing Wikipedia; but in my experience of editing Wikipedia, many times when editing, I will be asked to enter a string of verification codes to ensure that I am not a robot. Good to keep bots from wrecking Wikipedia. Additionally, Wikipedia has liberal and egalitarian values such as freedom of speech and gender equality. Second, Wikipedia's goal is to minimize marginalization and extremism. 2. Interesting points What is interesting is the WikiChix incident cited by the author. WikiChix’s practice of ex

 1. Summary The article argues that understanding Wikipedia requires appreciating its community and collaborative culture, but also recognizing the challenges it faces from personal differences and external threats. Despite its collaborative nature, Wikipedia has been shaped by authorial leadership, with an informal benevolent dictator guiding the community and mediating disputes. However, this leadership role can be challenging to balance, as new responsibilities and authority may arise. The article uses examples, such as Sanger's reflections on his departure from the community and discussions about Wales's role, to illustrate the delicate balance of leadership in the Wikipedia community. 2. Interesting As an AI language model, I do not have personal opinions, but I can identify some points that may be interesting to readers. One interesting point is how the author describes the culture and community of Wikipedia and how it has been shaped by authorial leadership. The idea of

 1)Summary:  We all know that anyone can edit Wikipedia. This is a major feature of Wikipedia, but while pursuing openness, Wikipedia also faces many difficulties and challenges. Due to the different purposes of users on the Internet, when Wikipedia is fully open, it will not only attract volunteers who edit because of love. There will also be malicious editors who disrupt the authenticity of Wikipedia content and reduce the quality of Wikipedia content. Becoming a stumbling block to Wikipedia's ultimate goal of producing a high-quality encyclopedia.  Wikipedia is seen as an open and free encyclopedia, with a central desire to increase access to information and open opportunities for anyone who wants to learn. However, due to many disadvantages, Wikipedia has adopted a protection mechanism. From the range that can be edited without registration before, many entries adopt semi-protected pages. It means that you must be a registered user for seven days and edit more than 50 times bef

  1.Summary In Wikipedia’s collaborative culture, the scope of an open perspective includes not only the subject of collaboration, claims about the world, but also one’s collaborators as well. In Wikipedia’s “Writing for the Enemy” essay, one is encouraged to see things as others might:  Note that writing for the enemy does not necessarily mean one believes the opposite of the “enemy” POV. The writer may be unsure what position he wants to take, or simply have no opinion on the matter. What matters is that you try to “walk a mile in their” shoes instead of judging them.  The “Assume Good Faith” article on Meatball, where different communities discuss pan-wiki culture, characterizes this as “seeing others’ humanity.”  Indeed, one of the reasons Wikipedia’s culture and practice are compelling to me is that it has influenced the way I approach controversy and conflict beyond Wikipedia; I have found these norms to be “a great way to end an argument in real life,”  which corresponds with sc

 I read some positive and negative comments about Wikipedia on the Internet. Positive ： 1. Wikipedia is available in multiple languages, with different perspectives. 2. All Wikipedia entries except protected ones can be edited without registration, saved and displayed directly on the page. 3. Wikipedia has a strict censorship on copyright and most of the pictures are the works owned by users themselves. Watermark of other websites is rarely seen. 4. All Wikipedia content is written by users, making it impossible to pay for changes and lock entries. Negative： 1. Although it claims that administrators are elected by users and can be removed at any time. But it is often difficult to actually remove administrators for reasons or sympathy, and only a few who have been inactive for a long time actually quit. 2. Wikipedia administrators have extremely high privileges compared to other online encyclopedia administrators. They can block users' accounts and IP addresses and cannot recreate t

1.Summary   The core of Wikipedia's collaboration is the "neutral point of view" and integrity, and these two cores complement each other. An understanding of neutrality and integrity can serve as a counterpoint to Wikipedia's irony, also known as its Zeroeth rule: while it may work well in practice, it does not work in theory.    But such a collaborative culture can also lead to some controversy. So the author's use of the term collaborative culture here refers to the set of assumptions, values, meanings, and actions associated with working together within a community. Media scholar Jenkins defines a participatory culture as one that has a low barrier to participation, supports creativity and sharing, and some form of mentoring or socialization, where members believe their contributions matter and they "feel some degree of social connection to each other. Based on these criteria, Wikipedia qualifies.    Wikipedia is a relatively new form of collaboration: on

  [Summary]      The chapter "Conflict and Consensus in an Open Source Community" from Joseph Reagle's book "Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia" explores the selection process for Wikipedia's "featured articles" and the tensions that arise between consensus and expertise in this process. Reagle uses ethnographic research methods to examine how the community navigates these tensions and the role of power and authority in the decision-making process. He finds that there is often conflict between community members who prioritize consensus and those who prioritize expertise, and that more experienced or knowledgeable members often have more influence in the selection process. However, the community values transparency and accountability, and decisions are typically made through public discussion and debate. Reagle's chapter sheds light on the challenges of collaborative decision-making in open-source communities and the need for bal

1） Summarize of metirals At the heart of Wikipedia collaboration are two complementary postures: "neutral point of view" (NPOV) and integrity. An understanding of neutrality and integrity could serve as a rebuttal to Wikipedia's favorite irony, also known as its Zeroeth law: While it may work well in practice, it will never work in theory. It's called a collaborative culture. To further explain the meaning of collaboration or culture, one can find many different answers. However, in the article, the author believes that culture is "the way of life of a nation", a system of "meaning creation" containing values, through which a community understands and acts, including its own maintenance and reproduction. Similarly, collaboration can be an equally provocative term that provokes debate, for example, about coordination or the difference between collaboration and collaboration. In addition, collaboration stands for other related concepts, such as dispu