W7. Good Faith Collaboration / Dayoung Ryu, 류다영


Wikipedia, the good faith



In Kowinski’s review, he criticized that internet and SNS are getting buzz recently, except google or Youtube and Wikipedia. Wikipedia has critics, because of Wikipedia’s model is not so like any type of predatory capitalism. 
In Wikipedia, someone can be an expert but also can be not. People do not need to get a license to edit articles, and Wikipedia do not employ a writer to make articles. People might think Wiki is not so credible wrote by un-experts, but Reagle explains the accuracy of articles after discussion.


I have replied on one’s blog post, about the motivation people make articles on Wikipedia. That blog post described why people edit the articles without payment. It said the reason might be esteem and self-actualization in Moslow hierarchy. I agreed that opinion, because I like to talk about Wikipedia and it is interesting topic to me. However, others could be not. 
We usually search information in book, journal, interview, and so on, and believe those are the most accuracy information among we can gather. But Wikipedia is different things. I can understand why people have argued about Wikipedia.


The good faith is a concept that quite hard to understand, but it works in Wikipedia. There are no advertorial articles and Ads, and making this kind of articles are not allowed and maybe roll backed soon. Can we adopt Wikipedia model in our real lives?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

WK 5.2 The Benevolent Dictator - Hanane Ben Abdeslam

In the reading it starts with the example of a “Neo-Nazi” dictator, it didn’t say when it exactly happened but I think it was during World War I and II. This dictator just did what he wanted to do, locking articles down, ban people, and protecting their own reputation and integrity. Actually, for someone to have that much power by a community founder is not unique to Wikipedia. Such leaders are often found in a project around, which a community develops, or otherwise emerge from a leaderless context by way of merit. However, Wikipedia is not an anarchy, democracy, nor a monarchy. Because of the voluntary and meritocratic character of open content communities it is not surprising that leaders are expected to lead by example as their very leadership is founded upon exemplary behavior. This means that leadership emerges through action rather than appointment. The prominent leader of an open content community is sometimes characterizing as a benevolent dictator. This is a variation on a t...
Read more

W2. What is Wikipedia - Seungju Lee

Summary Wikipedia is a multilingual online encyclopedia as an collaboration project. It isn't made by one people. Anyone can write and share information. It is maintained by non profit organizations. It is the largest and most popular  general reference work on the World Wide Web, and is one of the 20 most popular websites. Diverse information can be found in encyclopedia. Interesting point Wikipedia is made by group. All people in group can share their own information. Not only expert, but also anyone who have interest in topic, they can participate in make dictionary. I had a negative opinion about this in past, because this can affect on accuracy of information. But, after I realized that  this is "collaboration" project, many people can give a feedback to writers who post wrong information. So I could change my mind that that kind of feedback make good circulation on advance of wikipedia. And also it is collaboration project,  so I think variety of informat...
Read more

W2. What is Wikipedia? / Juhee Cha

After reading http://reagle.org/joseph/2010/gfc/foreward.html http://reagle.org/joseph/2010/gfc/preface-web.html http://reagle.org/joseph/2010/gfc/preface.html *Summary Wikipedia is a collaborative community that can freely and voluntarily make changes to the world. empower people to a wide The people who share knowledge here are not for the sake of money but for the people who love knowledge sharing itself. The data that you normally seek for knowledge is limited. These materials are difficult to produce and logically technical. But Wikipedia makes those processes simple. Wikipedia goes through the process of discussing drafts, sending comments, pointing out what is missing, and presenting ideas. *Interesting Point There was also definitely a negative perception of the Internet dictionary before taking the class. The biggest reason for this was that the public, not the 'experts', could modify it. But rather, after learning about Wikipedia's principles, I changed m...
Read more