Reading 6 -- GAO PEIYUN

 --Summary

The GFC deals with topics in Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community. This book is an ethnographic study of Wikipedia's history, its real-life and theoretical predecessors, and its culture. The book is described as a groundbreaking ethnographic study of Wikipedia culture.

This book provides an overview of the text and the author's approach and explores the history of collaboration between encyclopedias and communities. Discusses the reasons why Wikipedia achieves its intended purpose, including the impact of policies at the core of the project. Discussed licensing issues and whether all content on Wikipedia could be edited by anyone. Explores the nature of consensus decision-making within Wikipedia and other less well-known elements of the Wikipedia hierarchy. Analyzes popular and critical discussions on Wikipedia, including widespread concerns about the project.

--Interesting point

"What this book does well is describe how Wikipedia works and what issues have arisen... this may remain the best opportunity for learning about this remarkable project."

 "offers a compelling case that Wikipedia's most fascinating and unprecedented aspect isn't the encyclopedia itself – rather, it's the collaborative culture that underpins it: brawling, self-reflexive, funny, serious, and full-tilt committed to the project".

"this is a detailed and persuasive analysis of the nature of the Wikipedia community, and a valuable addition to critical and reflective accounts of the technological, social and political dimensions of contemporary media platforms".

--Discussion point

What problems have Wikipedia had so far?

Comments

  1. LI MINHUIApril 17, 2023 at 10:50 AM

    I think Wikipedia sometimes has a problem with malicious attacks or malicious edits.

    ReplyDelete
  2. YE SIQIApril 20, 2023 at 5:59 AM

    Differences arise during the editing process, leading to editorial warfare.

    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