Reading 2

 1. Summary

Wikipedia is an open content community. As long as you have the identity of an open content community, open content provision and its accompanying core values automatically function as the core values of Wikipedia. These subvalues include transparency, integrity, non-discriminatory, and non-interference. But being open creates conditions that paradoxically threaten openness. 

Anyone's ability to edit is a major factor in successfully building Wikipedia projects, but on the contrary, attempts to undermine Wikipedia also work on these systems. As a result, project managers often take limited action (for example, IP blocking). It also creates a closed private community that is ironic but differentiated from Wikipedia, an open project. Typically, there is a group of women who discuss gender bias-based editing within Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the only problem with this gender bias. In early encyclopedias, women only had shorter references than men, and women were excluded from the historical record. Despite these problems, closure has found a way to coexist with openness. That's why Wikipedia is now defined as an open content community.

2.Interesting point

It is surprising that what the term open means comes from the FOSS movement. I also got new information about the free software movement and Richard Stallman who led it.

3. Discussion

What are some examples of failure to find a way to balance openness and closure?

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