Reading 1 (MINJI JEONG)

[Summary]

    Wikipedia, a product of collective intelligence, could not have been predicted to achieve what it is 10 years ago. Currently, Wikipedia has become a prominent website around the world and is recognized in a variety of different ways. This is the result of collective intelligence created by people gathered entirely based on their love for work. Now we have to go through Wikipedia whatever anyone wants to know.


     Wikipedia is a community, but it's a community formed through practice or collaboration.' Working at Wikipedia means working together to produce the social goods that countless people around the world depend on. The author describes this aspect as "a world in which all humans are free to share the sum of their hair root instructions."


     In order to create a dictionary for everyone, many academic fields such as economics, politics, history, and even law are needed. But Wikipedia is not looking for perfection. I acknowledge the defect. Therefore, intellectuals are consciously practicing humility. Therefore, despite the flaws, users have a sense of humility in sharing their knowledge.



[Interesting point]


     It was interesting that Wikipedia's users acknowledge flaws in information when sharing knowledge and do not seek perfection from the first stage. Individuals go through their own validation process, and numerous assistants go through the step of confirming the reality of the information, and complete information sharing takes place.

 


[Discussion angle]


     Wikipedia can be seen as a venue for information sharing created under the review and sharing of information by numerous users. However, information has the property of variability. Numerous researchers around the world create new knowledge every day to refute existing information and serve as a new basis for existing information. Do Wikipedia users fully reflect the speed and variability of information?

Comments

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