Reading 4. GeonwooLee

 1. SUMMARY

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that anyone can participate in editing, but administrators strive to maintain the quality and accuracy of articles. Wikipedia operates on a community basis, with numerous voluntary editors writing and revising articles. Among them, there are experts in their respective fields, and they use their knowledge and experience to improve the content of the article.  In this process, other editors check and improve the content and accuracy of the article. The review process is based on community knowledge and discussion. In this way, the quality of articles is managed through collaboration with general users, but certain types of guidelines are also presented. It can be seen as a benevolent dictator because it is a way of autonomy. However, this method leads Wikipedia's free editing method in a better direction.


2. INTERESTING POINT


It was interesting that the administrators of Wikipedia could be seen as benevolent dictators. Administrators' guidelines and operational guidelines presented to build and operate an open and free Wikipedia system paradoxically interfere with users. However, it is Wikipedia's characteristic that officials in this way ensure the quality of Wikipedia articles and better autonomy.


3. DISCUSSION


So if Wikipedia is run in a way where there is no interference from managers at all, will the quality of Wikipedia articles remain the same? Or will it get better or worse?

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