Reading5 (Minji Jeong)

  [Summary}

     This article discusses how reference works can be intertwined with social and political debates, as demonstrated in the controversy surrounding the publication of Webster's Third dictionary. The author then looks at how Wikipedia is entangled in a similar debate today, with questions about the effectiveness of collaborative content production, the feasibility of a universal encyclopedia, and the impact of technology on knowledge construction. The discussion also considers the encyclopedic impulse and bibliophilic passion that drive both supporters and critics of Wikipedia, as well as the importance of developing critical judgment when evaluating information. Ultimately, the author argues for a reasoned middle ground, where Wikipedia can be used not only as a reference work, but also as a study of how knowledge is constructed and contested.


     And next article discusses the Wikipedia community's approach to achieving consensus and the challenges it faces. The lack of a clear topical and temporal scope, initial facilitation, membership turnover, and anonymity all contribute to the difficulty of achieving consensus. The author provides examples of humorous difficulties encountered by the community, including a WikiSpeak definition and a joke about changing a light bulb. Despite these challenges, the Wikipedia community is an open content community that trusts in human judgment over the long run. The article concludes by noting the unique leadership structure of the community, characterized by a "benevolent dictator."


     The article suggests that reference works can be involved in larger conservative versus progressive tensions and that Wikipedia is no exception. The conversation about Wikipedia involves themes such as the changing nature of content production, a universal encyclopedia, the character of discussion, and the relationship between technology and change. The author proposes a reasoned middle ground, emphasizing the importance of critical judgment in validating information. Wikipedia can serve not only as a reference work but also as a study of how knowledge is constructed and contested.


[Interesting point]


     What was particularly interesting was the challenges the Wikipedia community faced in achieving consensus, including lack of clear scope, facilitation, turnover and anonymity in the second article. Despite these difficulties, it was interesting that the community had a unique leadership structure of "benevolent dictators" and trusted human judgment in the long run.



[Discussion angle]


     The author argues that he proposes a reasonable intermediate position, emphasizing the importance of critical judgment in verifying information. Ultimately, can Wikipedia be seen as serving as a study of how knowledge is constructed and competed, as well as reference work?

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