W9/ Category:Wikipedia culture/ Lee Hayoung

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions

This is a guide to make the most of the RfA (administration for request) procedure. Opinions opposed to RfA should be reviewed in more detail than those supported. Nor should criticism be baseless and should be constructive and courteous. In addition, those who have been verified for reliability benefit. Of course, anyone can make a mistake, at this point you should look at the person's attitude after making a mistake, rather than focusing on the mistake itself. You have to see if you can correct the error. We often judge how much the person cares and is active only by the total number of edits, but we shouldn't. In fact, many people who have edited so many times have been blocked many times. I think we should be able to look at the process in it.

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

W7. Good Faith Collaboration / Kim Seon Woo

Summary   Wikipedia's culture includes the topics of Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. The 2010 book. This book was first published on August 27, 2010 through MIT Press and has a preface to Lawrence Lessig.   This book is an ethnographic study of Wikipedia's history, practical and theoretical pioneers, and culture, including consensus and collaboration practices. This book is described as a pioneering ethnographic study of Wikipedia culture. Reagle's main paper was summed up with the claim that "Wikipedia's success may be less technical than the results of Wikipedia's community and their cultural norms." Interesting Point It is interesting to discuss Wikipedia's fundamental principle of operation, 'cooperation'. Wikipedia, which can be seen as an integral part of modern technology, would not be possible without cooperation. Discussion Does Wikipedia only have cooperation? How should conflict ...
Read more