Wikipedia was impossible before. a decade ago, nobody imagined wikipedia.
this thought wikipedia is one of the very top web sites on the internet .
And not just the Internet. Wikipedia has come to define the very best in an ethic of a different kind of economy or community. at its core, it is a “collaborative community”. it empowers widely.
I agree wikipedia means collaborative community.
when I did edit wikipedia, I feel collaborative community .
wikipedia is worked voluntarily by people.
I saw many people join forces and made one article.
Most of the world has known of Wikipedia for no more than a few years.
and now, we can know imformations through wikipedia.
Scholars will spend a generation understanding its birth and growth.
But Joseph Reagle’s contribution here is something new and important.
He was a computer scientist at MIT.
sometime, when I saw 'Joseph Reagle' in site, I didn't know what to mean
Wikipedia is a community, but one formed through a practice, or a doing — collaboration.I knew Joseph Reagle through this reading.
The collaboration produces a social good that an enormous number of people from around the world rely upon.
“a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.”
wikipedia is a great idea.
Most of the encyclopedia appeared to already made frame. but Wikipedia broke the frame.
We need many academic disciplines — economics, political science, history, even law — to help us understand this phenomenon.
But the first rich understanding must come from ethnographies.
Only a deep reading of the culture of this community can begin to make the important lessons of Wikipedia accessible.
What is most striking throughout this lucid and informed account is the human-ness of everything inside.
No one doubts it produces an encyclopedia that has errors. But it is hard to imagine a more significant and sustained community, manned by volunteers, from teenagers to retirees, working to produce understanding.
wikipedia should have to accuracy. not our just knowledge.
Every serious soul must try to understand this impossibility.
Nor that an important first step in that understanding is found in these pages.
wikipedia need to Sources.
as I read this, I had mind that want to full more and more good informations
I am wikipedia's new pupil. It's hard for me to modify wikipedia at this early stage becoming to know more and more.
When I read this reading, I wondered that it is appropriate information until what information.
there are both good information and bad information in each article.
How far can wikipedia accept the informations ?
I wondered for editing more good information.
No comments:
Post a Comment