W5. Can we trust Wikipedia?


Can we trust Wikipedia?




Wikipedia is taking a bazaar model. Lots of people can read, modify, add, and delete Wikipedia content. How does Wikipedia work so well in this unstable situation?


We learned broken window theory this week. The content of the theory is as follows; The criminals break the window once and wait a week. If you find that a window has not been fixed after a week, the criminals think there is a weak security and commit a crime. To prevent a crime from happening, a broken window needs to be fixed quickly.

Wikipedia also applies the broken window theory. Wikipedia is a place where many people contribute. They keep a close watch on the documentation and discuss improvements. As more people use Wikipedia and have a willingness to improve it, Wikipedia is safe. Moreover, since Wikipedia is a structure that is easy to fix the wrong thing, it is difficult to use or mislead Wikipedia documents with bad intentions.

I think Wikipedia is a virtuous cycle structure. (1) Wikipedia is an easy-to-edit architecture. You do not have to install any other software, you can use it only if you have a browser. It is easy to input new contents, and moreover, it is easy to restore or correct the wrong thing. (2) This easy-to-use structure makes more people use Wikipedia. As more people gather to build collective intelligence, the content of Wikipedia becomes richer and the number of users increases. Even if someone does damage to Wikipedia, it is easy to go in the right direction because of (1) easy to edit structure, and (2) many users exist.


As people who participate in Wikipedia collective intelligence, we should think that we are a process of a virtuous cycle of Wikipedia. So I can trust Wikipedia. And many people think that Wikipedia is a place to trust.

Here is a question I would like to ask you today. The professor explained why it is important to leave a signature in the course of discussing with Wikipedia during class. If there is no rule to sign Wikipedia, will Wikipedia remain as reliable as it is now?



- Jina Park / 박진아 -

Comments

  1. Kim ju hwan 김주환April 6, 2019 at 11:12 PM

    I think leaving a signature is a symbol of trust. If there was nothing left to sign, there would be a situation where we distrust each other, and Wikipedia would not function. As a result, it could even reach the point of shutting down Wikipedia.
    That's why I think the sign function is essential.

    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