Week4 - Review about the readings for the next week. - Jo HyeonSeong (조현성)
1. Summarize in my own words of materials.
The book is primarily about the openness of Wikipedia. Openness means that anyone can participate in the creation and editing of articles without any qualifications.
Openness can be a double-edged sword. While it means that you can edit without having expert knowledge of a topic, it also means that you can participate even if you have expert knowledge.
For experts, articles written by non-experts can come across as inaccurate knowledge, which can anger experts.
This anger can also be a catalyst for Wikipedia to continue to improve.
However, articles edited only by non-experts can cause misunderstandings and convey incorrect information, so openness can be considered a double-edged sword.
In fact, it sometimes causes some conflict, such as Wales' negative stance.
Openness also means freedom from copyright, which means anyone can take it and use it anywhere.
That is why the knowledge of non-experts can have greater impact. That is why appropriate references should be provided.
2. mention of any new, interesting, or unusual items learned
I didn't really know the importance of references when I was editing Wikipedia. However, reading this chapter made me realize how important references are.
It was also an opportunity to learn that openness can work against you, unlike what I thought would be beneficial when information from many people is combined.
I also think it was meaningful to learn about other people's positions on this.
I think the openness of Wikipedia is a good thing because anyone can contribute to writing and editing articles, so it's very timely.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there is a problem of unprofessionalism, and to solve it, I think it is important not only to attach references, but also to have a system to review whether the references are professional information. If there are no references, or if the references are low-quality information, it is important to have a system to quickly delete them.
In my opinion, the openness of Wikipedia is admirable, because it allows collective knowledge-building and encourages broad participation from people of all backgrounds. however, the spread of content created primarily by non-experts could lead to widespread misinformation, misunderstandings. Also it can make a gradual erosion of trust in the platform as a reliable source of knowledge.
ReplyDeleteWikipedia's openness offers many advantages. Anyone can easily add and edit information, allowing knowledge to expand rapidly and ensuring that the latest information is quickly reflected. By working collaboratively, a variety of perspectives are incorporated, providing richer and more comprehensive information. Additionally, being freely accessible allows people from around the world to easily access knowledge, which is a significant benefit. Thanks to this openness, Wikipedia has grown rapidly, evolving into a dynamic platform where people can freely modify and supplement information. The issues arising from openness can be addressed through collaboration among users, improving the quality of content and maintaining Wikipedia's reliability.
ReplyDeleteI think Wikipedia's openness is harmful to people, but it has more benefits. There is a problem that the spread of misinformation can occur. However, it can be supplemented by the fact that various people can participate and correct it. Therefore, it is meaningful in that it can be made into reliable information by utilizing the knowledge of many people.
ReplyDelete