Reading 5. GeonwooLee

 1. SUMMARY

When discussing Wikipedia's culture, we use the metaphor of the puzzle to explain how neutral perspectives and good intentions complement each other in the co-production of encyclopedias. This can also be found in Wikipedia's logo. Users write articles based on autonomy, and in the process, inaccurate information and articles for bad purposes can be scattered. Wikipedia edits articles objectively and neutrally through the review process. People have different ideas on one topic, and the way they edit it is different. The resulting disputes should be reduced to a mutual respect attitude and continuous feedback.


2. INTERESTING POINT


In fact, I didn't know what the Wikipedia logo meant. Different languages are written on the globe made of puzzles. It was very interesting to see Wikipedia writing articles through mutual respect from many people around the world. For objective and neutral article editing, it is important for editors to understand each other's cultural and personal differences. I think Wikipedia is on the right track to do that.


3. DISCUSSION


How will Wikipedia administrators solve this problem if no matter how much users discuss in the process of editing articles on a particular topic, their opinions are not narrowed?

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