W4. Wikipedia's openness (after reading) / Juhee Cha

  Not every case that allows more people to edit will be considered "more open." For example, "Only certain people can edit this document," "No one can edit this document." Openness means an overall assessment of the entire process, as well as the number of people who can be edited. It's a process in which people with diverse opinions still make edits and make revisions. They are much better than completely blocking editing.The problem we're seeing is not to blame the editor for making biased remarks on Wikipedia, but to do it until we understand the right way to do things, rather than "accept our proposal" that we can "edit."
  I think Wikipedia's "open" trait is a double-edged sword. On the positive side, people with diverse ideas may come together to produce one huge piece of information, and on the negative side, people with diverse ideas will bring about a situation in which it will turn into a window of discussion, not a window of knowledge, and information will continue to change. I thought it would be difficult for people with such diverse opinions to create neutral knowledge.
  As mentioned above, I think openness has both positive and negative aspects. I wonder what my classmates think. Will Wikipedia's openness have greater positive or greater negative effects?

Comments

  1. Freedom comes at a price. So editors should make some effort to follow wiki rules. Then wiki articles will be better.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

WK 5.2 The Benevolent Dictator - Hanane Ben Abdeslam

W2. What is Wikipedia - Seungju Lee

W2. What is Wikipedia? / Juhee Cha