#4 Good Faith Collaboration_chapter1,2

#4 Good Faith Collaboration_chapter1,2


Through Reagle's book chapter 1-2, I was able to learn about Wikipedia and its history.

To be honest, it is not surprising that Wikipedia was not the first Internet encyclopedia.
Before Wikipedia, there have been several attempts to share intelligence on the Internet.
I learned the history of the Internet encyclopedia, and compared it with Wikipedia.
In the process, I learned why Wikipedia became the 'first' and 'best' developed Internet encyclopedia.

Everyone who reads the document is an easy-to-edit Wikipedia.
Even non-experts can edit Wikipedia.

At the end of the lessons learned from the Internet encyclopedia that existed before, Wikipedia has grown rapidly to become 'useful' within six months of its opening.
It is no exaggeration to say that today's Wikipedia could have existed because there was the ups and downs of previous Internet encyclopedia.



My most impressive part is that the Internet Encyclopedia is intended to gather all the human knowledge in one place and to share it with the people of the world and to share it with the posterity.

In the information age, the issue of 'information gap' between rich and poor is a big issue.
It does not matter who has more data. People often get into trouble because of too much data. The problem is finding good quality data in a lot of data.

People with "good data" have control over the information age.
Some say that those who were ruling classes in the capitalist era had already acquired good quality data using capital. Thus, even if the information age comes, the fundamental relationship between the ruling class and the non-controlling class does not change and an equal world does not come.

But I think that trying to use collective intelligence like Wikipedia to share quality data (with references) with everyone can bring about real equality and peace.

What do you think about the information age?
Do you think you can resolve the information gap through Wikipedia?



- Jina Park / 박진아 -

Comments

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