Reading 6--LI MINHUI

 1. Summary:

 This book is on the subject of Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community. The content of this book mainly includes the history of Wikipedia, its real-life and theoretical precursors, and the ethnographic study of Wikipedia's culture. The author of this book, Regal, is an expert scholar in the sociology of the Internet and a volunteer on Wikipedia. So the author wrote this book after fully understanding Wikipedia, so that more people can learn more about Wikipedia through this book.

 This book emphasizes that the most fascinating aspect of Wikipedia is not the authority of the encyclopedia. Rather, it is the collaborative culture that underpins it, and the concept of community in Wikipedia. A useful article in Wikipedia is backed by reliable sources and remains neutral. There is no position, but an objective statement. So trustworthy.

 At the same time, this book also answers the doubts of many people who are skeptical of Wikipedia. The book emphasizes the production of Wikipedia, rather than consumption and advertising. Makes an important contribution to readers' understanding of the collaborative culture and open content community that Wikipedia produces.

2. Interesting point:

 José-Carlos Redondo-Olmedilla once concluded that this book is an absolutely excellent read and a complete exercise in transparency. It can be seen that this book's description of Wikipedia is very objective.

3. Discussion point：

 Why is this book suitable for anyone interested in the history of information technology and its new forms of collective agency? Does it mean that Wikipedia's audience only has these two types of representatives?

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