Reading 5: ZENG WANTING

 1) Summarize

Over time, the average quality of Wikipedia articles has improved, but the standard of wikipedians has risen even faster. While groups collaborate inevitably there is debate, what was once considered an adequate article, even after expansion and improvement, may today be marked as a stub.

As the way Wikipedia content is edited changes, people will question whether collaboration in this way is good or bad and is not an unusual phenomenon. Wikipedia is the imperfect realization of a long-sought vision of a global encyclopedia. But this vision has been challenged by critics as an unlikely utopia, or a dangerous dystopia. While technology may inspire some people to move toward specific goals, it can also turn off others and create undesirable changes in which we should remain neutral.


2) Someting interested

We should not confuse useful measures of relevance and popularity in finding information with means of verifying it; We must continue to develop the tools of critical judgment. Wikipedia serves not only as a reference work, but also as a study of how knowledge is constructed and contested.


3) Discussion

What should we do to stay in a neutral point of view?

Comments

  1. Lee EunsukApril 10, 2023 at 11:02 PM

    It is necessary to accept the content critically and judge whether the content is really correct. If we accept it without criticism, we will not be able to maintain a neutral stance.

    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