#9 Discuss Reagle's chapter 3-4

<Discuss Reagle's chapter 3-4>

  I've read Reagle's chapter 3-4. The two chapter talked about good faith collaboration and the puzzle of openness. I found them very interesting, especially chapter 3, the good faith collaboration. The puzzle of openness was quite difficult for me. 
  Chapter 3 speaks about the unique culture that exists in Wikipedia. On the middle of the collaboration, there stands neutral point of view(NPOV) and good faith(including patience, civility, and humor). This two elements are hard to coexist in Wikipedia, but surprisingly in Wikipedia, it's possible. Even if various people participate in Wikipedia, the magical collaboration is going quite well. Having neutral point of view and good faith means that people understand and appreciate each other. Chapter 4 speaks about the puzzle of openness. Because Wikipedia is an open content community, it also includes the concept of openness. The open of information and the people who edits them. Then naturally there occurs an irony of openness. Seemingly theoretically perfect openness also has a factor that can lead to the less inclusive. 
  Studying about Wikipedia more deeply, I strongly think that Wikipedia is not just a simple dictionary about information. It is a implication of various people, practices, cultures, policies and so on. People make impossible possible. 

[Discussion] Wikipedia is an open content community, but how if Wikipedia is not? If Wikipedia was only opened to some people, and there were some power and authority to some people? 

Comments

  1. 이예원 (yewon Lee)May 2, 2019 at 5:07 AM

    I think all the internet community is open content. but It looks different than Wikipedia. Wikipedia has fast feedback, but other things take a long time and don't care.

    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