Reading 5. Subin Jung

 1. Summary

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that consists of community participation and collaboration. Wikipedia values community engagement and this culture of collaboration over technology. For Wikipedia's cooperative nature, criticism of its status and future is essential, and change is inevitable. In addition, communities evolve over time, embracing, excluding criticism and facilitating change. Wikipedia, full of adventures and challenges, brings amazing results every time, and will continue to grow.


2. Interesting/Useful Points
It was interesting to emphasize the importance of Wikipedia's community and culture. It's a huge online community, where Wikipedia's power, growth, and influence are enormous, but it nevertheless places more emphasis on human values than on the technical side. It was interesting to emphasize and value the human side.


3. Discussion
Given the cooperative nature and nature of Wikipedia, I wonder whether it would be better to accept the criticism they receive, or not to accept criticism according to Wikipedia's characteristics, and which way would be better to grow Wikipedia.

원 서머리 위키피디어 이즈 앤 인사익러피디어 댓 컨시스트스 어브 커뮤너티 파아티서페이션 언드 시오우엘레레이비오우아아레이티아이오웬 위키피디어 밸류즈 커뮤너티 엔게이지먼트 언드 디스 컬처 어브 컬래버레이션 오우버 티이시에이체노우엘로우지와이 포어 위카입 ...더보기

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