#7 Why Free Culture matters?

Wikipedia is one of the most popular examples of free culture. Because Wikipedia is nobody's property. It seeks public interest, not private interest, as a community result of collective intelligence. Wikipedia can be written by anyone. And there is no copyright in such artifacts. These characteristics can be seen as free culture.
 
Then, why free culture matters? I think this free culture has induced people to make active movements. If a free culture like Wikipedia was not possible, everyone would have taken a passive attitude toward information acquisition.
 
Without Wikipedia, we would have relied only on the information the teacher told us at school or on the information provided in the encyclopedia. However, now we can actively find information through the Internet. This saves time and can pursue information diversity.
 
On the main screen of Wikipedia, visitors can find various information such as art, history, science, society, technology and geography. Even Wikipedia provides a wide range of information and is highly accurate and reliable. If there is incorrect information, many editors monitor and correct it. I think this is a typical feature and advantage of a free culture.
 
However, I sometimes worry about the problems of this free culture. Because the issue of copyright cannot be ignored as there is a variety of information in a free culture. For example, the pictures I took could be used elsewhere. There is too much content to use without seeking consent from copyrighter. However, we cannot monitor and filter all of this because a lot of information exists on the Internet. So what do we have to do to effectively deal with copyright issues in a free culture?
 
 
 
By  Chominkook
 
 

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