#3 The Scope of Wikipedia (What Wikipedia is Not?), Deletion and Notability

1) Summarize

Wikipedia motto is "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." Wikipedia is open to everyone, but it cannot contain all the information. That's because someone can easily delete my edits. It is said that in the case of por article, it can be deleted immediately. So what does it mean to delete from Wikipedia? It means nonsense, advertising, spam, vadalism, hoaxes, copyright validation, content operations. In addition, the same case of personal opinion is subject to deletion. The professor's data says,Wikipedia is not a place for primary research, opinion pieces or personal or personal essays. 


2) Interesting

As I mentioned earlier, anyone can edit on Wikipedia, but someone can easily delete my edits. If it's a good article, my edited article will remain. But if it's a bad article, my editing will be deleted by someone. By the way, what are the criteria for good and bad articles? Someone deleted my editing from my Wikipedia editing last week. However, the Wikipedia editing I wrote this week remains the same. In fact, the two editing methods are the same. I have written based on factual information and attached a reference to support it. I am sometimes confused by the deletion of these edits. Just like a student in the same class asked this Friday's class.


3) Discussion 
"Do you think Wikipedia is right to reject censorship?"

Censorship means that public authority controls the disclosure of any content or expression. I don't think it's right to censor Wikipedia because freedom of expression is a very important right in our democratic society. We will not get objective and diverse information because of censorship.

Written by Chominkook

Comments

  1. Kim ju hwan 김주환March 23, 2019 at 11:52 PM

    I think Wikipedia's censorship is right. This is because if information is posted at random, social problems such as social confusion can arise.
    However, I think that the criteria should be clearly stated and wikipedia informed the user for the reasons.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discuss Reagle’s chapters 3-4

Discuss Reagle’s chapters 3-4 I read the Reagle's chapters 3-4. I find two opinion. One thing is how to collaborate people on Wikipedia. Other is how to make open community on Wikipedia. How to collaborate people on Wikipedia. In the case of the English Wikipedia, there is a collaborative culture that asks its participants to assume two postures: a stance of neutral point of view on matters of knowledge, and a stance of good faith toward one’s fellow contributors. I think that people know the mood that must keep the rule on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia's mood is light, people write the light writing. Other is how to make open community on Wikipedia. I remember the discussion that Why the Women is smaller that the men on Wikipedia. I've heard from others the reason that women don't use it much because the community isn't friendly to women. I think that we try to create Wikipedia to use all the people no matter that the sex. I think it's a process ...
Read more

Discuss Reagle's Chapter3-4

In  the Reagle  Chapter 3-4, the troll and the ignore rules were impressive.  Troll is the one who destroys teamwork and leads the team to ruin.  Trolls, which are negative characters, help develop Wikipedia. Wikipedia finds the wrong information generated by the troll. And the information is modified by others. In that process, it results in more information production. There is an outlaw, similar to a troll. The lawless ignores all regulations, including copyright and reference. Like Trolls, they help develop Wikipedia. They are free to edit because they are out of regulation. The free edited content is modified by others, including attaching references and deleting content that is caught in copyright issues. Wikipedia develops as it takes care of these types of people.
Read more

Discuss Reagle’s chapter 5

Discuss Reagle’s chapter 5 It is hard to understand this chapter. When I used the Wikipedia, I thought I don't need to group communication. Because the communication space is hidden, so I don't find it. I'm hard to find the communication space on Wikipedia. I think that the Wikipedia communication is not good at working in Korea. There are not many advisers on Korea Wikipedia. The Wiktionary definitions for consensus speak of “general agreement,” “without active opposition to the proposed course of action. I found it important for members to reach an agreement on Wikipedia. It's not an easy task, but I think it can produce a good results. So I think that's why Wikipedia exists. It can appear in a chat window, and go and talk to the other person's chat room. Perhaps it ends up as a personal versus personal matter, but I think that's also an agreement. If conversation does not take place, I don't think an agreement is reached either. Wiki...
Read more