Discuss Reagle's Chapers 1-2

I read the Reagle Chapers 1-2. It's interested the Wiki's history and the other projects.

There are many projects that sharing the information and make some new things.

H. G. Wells and the “World Brain”, Project Xanadu, Project Gutenberg, Interpedia, Nupedia, GNUPedia and so on....

I wonder that many projects that make and share the information are in the history before the Wiki I'm interested the Nupedia.

Nupedia was an English-language web-based encyclopedia whose articles were written by volunteer contributors with appropriate subject matter expertise, reviewed by expert editors before publication, and licensed as free content.

Nupedia was better than the projects. 
Because Nupedia eiditers were about 25–40% of these (or 35–56) are Ph.D.’s or otherwise clearly bona fide experts.
I think that experts's edit is better than other people
but Nupedia was struggling. Nupedia editorial process was so complex and difficult.
I think the matter is Nupedia updating. Nupedia had a seven-step approval process to control content of articles before being posted, rather than live wiki-based updating.

Unlike Nupedia, It's easy to update and write the information even if we are not experts. If the information is wrong, we can fix it free. people can fix it every time and everywhere in Wikipedia. 
That's why the Wiki survived longer than the other projects.
I think that the point is "I argue “good faith” culture is necessary to its production and an occasional consequence of participation." This sentence is good to explain the Wiki.

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