Reflexive report. Kim Jiwon

 

 While editing Wikipedia, I experienced the culture and characteristics of collaborative editing, along with its intricate rules. Adapting to the systematic rules created by previous users was challenging, but there were valuable lessons to be learned. The anonymous and simultaneous nature of contributions, combined with the vast amount of knowledge that couldn't be fully covered, presented a challenge in reporting. 

 The principles guiding the operation of this massive vessel, driven by a lofty vision, made me wonder where the limits of voluntary and well-intentioned contributions lie. Despite this, Wikipedia continues to function smoothly. It's a remarkable phenomenon. 

 Witnessing the dedicated efforts of users striving for accurate and fair documentation, I discovered my own contributions within group activities aimed at creating valid results, such as striving for precision and meticulous scrutiny. Structuring, reviewing, and providing feedback—engaging in such tasks made me realize the attitude required for seamless collaboration with others.

 It also served as a source of wisdom in considering what information holds value and what constitutes the right choices in collective knowledge endeavors. Before writing an article, I now contemplate the worth of the information I intend to contribute, what constitutes proper information dissemination, and what constitutes a suitable choice within a collective knowledge project. These experiences will stay with me.

This assignment allowed me to explore various aspects of Wikipedia in an extensive, open-ended, and long-term manner. Its approach involves openly publishing the final product on the internet. The completed work can continue to be enhanced and maintained. 

 The feature of maintainability allows for rectifying one's own mistakes or shortcomings at a later stage, which is an advantage. Furthermore, the project can be revisited through personal reflection or feedback from others, providing a continuous reminder of the differences in thinking (between one's past and present self or the audience). The fact that it doesn't end easily adds an interesting element.

 The development of Wikipedia will not cease, even if it progresses slowly.



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