Reading 6. GeonwooLee

 1. SUMMARY

"Good Faith Collaboration" examines and analyzes how collaborative online projects such as Wikipedia operate and persist. This paper describes Wikipedia's collaborative model as the concept of "good will collaboration". "Good will collaboration" means an online collaboration in which participants voluntarily contribute and share knowledge with others. This requires participants to act on the basis of mutual trust and mutual respect. The paper describes Wikipedia's successful operations, covering topics such as its organizational structure, anonymity, discussion and exchange of views, quality management, leadership, and voluntary engagement. It also helps you understand the value and motivation of collaborative online projects, including Wikipedia, and highlights the importance of an autonomous and open collaborative environment. And we suggest that a cooperative model based on mutual trust and respect plays a key role in achieving the success of knowledge sharing and collaboration.


2. INTERESTING POINT


Personally, it was interesting that there was good cooperation. It is not easy for an unspecified number of people to gather to produce a single result. The most important thing is the trust issue with the participants. Anonymity is a device that allows you to express your opinion honestly, but it can be a wall in the process of building trust. I think it is important to solve this problem and build good-faith cooperation based on trust.


3. DISCUSSION


How will the results of the project be derived if it is carried out without trust when conducting an online project based on anonymity? How different is the result from the result based on trust?

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