Reading 1--LI MINHUI

1)Summary:

Reading the article made me more aware of the Wikipedia we are using. Wikipedia has grown rapidly since its inception and has become one of the top websites in the world today. This is thanks to the contributions to Wikipedia content made by volunteers from different countries around the world. The core of Wikipedia is a collaborative community, and every volunteer has absolute fairness and democratic power on Wikipedia. Just make sure the source of the information is authentic and has an accurate source, and it will be taken.

An excellent article on Wikipedia is not written by one person, but is formed through the practice and cooperation of many people, and the information is not always the same, and someone will be required to update the latest content. This makes for a good and trustworthy Wikipedia article. So building an encyclopedia is a cumulative, interdependent activity.

Wikipedia is very inclusive and full of humanity. Wikipedia content is not limited to content experts who can write it. Rather, it is made up of volunteers of all ages and jobs, from teens to seniors. If someone is interested in a certain content and knows it well, there will be a lot of information that can be supplemented, so as to better improve the content in Wikipedia and promote cooperation and understanding.

Online communities such as Wikipedia, although unpaid, further stimulate the essence of volunteers' amateur ethics. That is, people edit because they love it, and find happiness and a sense of accomplishment in the process of editing. In this way, more people's participation will form a more important, longer-lasting and more stable online community.

2)Interesting point:

Formation is inspired by instances where the different skills and personalities of the author's colleagues complement each other. What emerges after disagreement or discussion is greater than the sum of our individual efforts. It also means that editing Wikipedia is to complete the encyclopedia content that everyone agrees on through constant revision and discussion. will be more trustworthy.

3)Discussion point:

Why is it that while we can find plenty of debate in the blogosphere and Wikipedia, the intent and spirit of the discussions in the two communities are so different? What are the core content advocated by the two communities respectively? Where are the similarities?



Comments

  1. 이서윤(Seoyoon Lee)March 16, 2023 at 5:07 AM

    Blogs are a kind of SNS, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This essential difference causes the difference between the two services. The Wikipedia debate focuses on delivering more accurate information. However, the blog should keep in mind that each operator is edited into very subjective information to project his point of view.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reading 3——CHENXINLEI

  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...
Read more

Reading 4

 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 ...
Read more

Reading7——HE YUNONG

  1. Summary After reading this article, I understand that Wikipedia articles must have reliable sources, and the opinions in the sources should be neutral. Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. 2. Interesting points News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source.  I think this is important because some news headlines are written to grab the reader's attention quickly and briefly; their news content may be exaggerated or lack context, and even sometimes contain sensational claims. 3. Discussion points Do you know how to test reliable sources?
Read more