Wednesday, October 28, 2015

W7 readings

 
This reading introduces free culture. This is intro.
This intro start to story of Causby concerning to the Wright brothers.
 
On December 17, 1903, the Wright brothers demonstrated that a heavier-than-air, self- propelled vehicle could fly.
Their assertion is undersood.
There was an interest in this newfound technology of manned flight, and innovators began to build upon it.
 
At the time the Wright brothers invented the airplane, American law held that a property owner presumptively owned all the land below, down to the center of the earth, and all the space above, to "an indefinite extent, upwards."
 
For many years, scholars had embarrassed about how best to construe the idea that rights in land ran to the heavens.
They wondered that means do you possess star ?
when airplanes came, this principle of American law mattered.
 
When North Carolina farmers Thomas Lee and Tinie Causby started losing chickens because of low-flying military aircraft.
Causby litigated Wright brothers about trespassing on their land.
Even though airplane didn't completely reach in land, Wright brothers invaded the range that Causby didn’t allow.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the Causby's case. The air is a public highway.
 
They could stand on their farms, dead chickens in hand, and shake their fists at these newfangled technologies all they wanted.
 
Their "private interest" would not be allowed to defeat an obvious public gain.
 
Edwin Howard Armstrong is one of America's forgotten inventor geniuses. He came to the great American inventor scene just after the titans Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell.
Armstrong invented profoundly important technologies that advanced our understanding of radio.
 
On November 5, 1935, he demonstrated the technology at a meeting of the Institute of Radio Engineers at the Empire State Building in New York City.
 
The audience was hearing something no one had thought possible:
 
 
As our own common sense tells us, Armstrong had discovered a vastly superior radio technology. But at the time of his invention, Armstrong was working for RCA. RCA was the dominant player in the then dominant AM radio market.
RCA's president, David Sarnoff, a friend of Armstrong's, was eager that Armstrong discover a way to remove static from AM radio.
 
He say that the static part can remove, But when Armstrong demonstrated his invention, Sarnoff was not pleased
 
Armstrong's invention threatened RCA's AM empire, so the company launched a campaign to smother FM radio.
While FM may have been a superior technology, Sarnoff was a superior tactician.
 
RCA at first kept the technology in house, insisting that further tests were needed. When, after two years of testing, Armstrong grew impatient, RCA began to use its power with the government to stall FM radio's deployment generally.
 
To make room in the spectrum for RCA's latest gamble, television, FM radio users were to be moved to a totally new spectrum band.
The spread of FM radio was choked temporarily.
 
Armstrong resisted RCA's efforts. RCA resisted Armstrong's patents.
After incorporating FM technology into the emerging standard for television, RCA declared the patents invalid. For six years, Armstrong fought an expensive war of litigation to defend the patents. Finally, just as the patents expired, RCA offered a settlement so low that it would not even cover Armstrong's lawyers' fees. Defeated, broken, and now broke, in 1954 Armstrong wrote a short note to his wife and then stepped out of a thirteenth- story window to his death.
Through this part, I felt the hard fight that keep the patent and ignore the patent.
finally, the person that has power is winner.
Through Armstrong’s death, I thought his unfair and miserable mind.
Inventer of Internet don’t know clearly.
Yet in a very short time, the Internet has become part of ordinary American life.
Now, The Internet needs in our life. this assignment doing now also need the Internet.
As the Internet has been integrated into ordinary life, it has changed things.
Some of these changes are technical. This is not a book about the Internet.
Instead, this book is about an effect of the Internet beyond the Internet itself: an effect upon how culture is made.
 
The focus of the law was on commercial creativity.
the law protected the incentives of creators by granting them exclusive rights to their creative work, so that they could sell those exclusive rights in a commercial marketplace. and it has become an increasingly important part in America.
This rough divide between the free and the controlled has now been erased.
Corporations threatened by the potential of the Internet to change the way both commercial and noncommercial culture are made and shared have united to induce lawmakers to use the law to protect them.
 
It is the story of RCA and Armstrong; it is the dream of the Causby.
 
The consequence is that we are less and less a free culture, more and more a permission culture.
 
This change gets justified as necessary to protect commercial creativity. And protectionism is exactly its motivation.
 
Digital technologies could produce a vastly more competitive and vibrant market for building and cultivating culture;
The market can include much wider and more diverse range.
 
These modern-day equivalents of the early twentieth-century radio or nineteenth-century railroads are using their power to get the law to protect them against this new, more efficient, more vibrant technology for building culture.
 
Most think that we need only decide whether we're for property or against it.
Choice of piracy is our portion.
I thought we need creative property more than piracy.
piracy reduces our creative thinking. so, we don’t have subjective thinking.
So, I think that Creative property is important part in our life.
 
The law's response to the Internet has massively increased the effective regulation of creativity in America.
 
The story that follows is about this war.
There will be great harm to our tradition and culture if it is allowed to continue unchecked. We must come to understand the source of this war. We must resolve it soon.
The property of this war is not as tangible as the Causby and no innocent chicken has yet to lose its life. Yet the ideas surrounding this "property" are as obvious to most as the Causby' claim about the sacredness of their farm was to them.
Through this Causby’s story, I felt property is important.
 
Common sense does not revolt. Unlike in the case of the unlucky Causbys, common sense is on the side of the property owners in this war.
Unlike the lucky Wright brothers, the Internet has not inspired a revolution on its side.
Through story of Causby and Wright brothers, This reading say Important property of internet.
That while the Internet has indeed produced something fantastic and new, our government, pushed by big media to respond to this "something new," is destroying something very old.
 
Rather than understanding the changes the Internet might permit, and rather than taking time to let "common sense" resolve how best to respond, we are allowing those most threatened by the changes to use their power to change the law.
 
This reading teaches learning through story.
So, I read funny, because Internet is natural in our life, I didn't think it.
through this reading, I thought a little more about Internet.
The Internet is to help us a lot.
From now on, I will use as understanding better the internet.
 
Also, I wonder about Internet property in this reading.
I learn that property is more important than any other things.
I want to know detail about internet property.
In this reading middle part, the word ‘creative thinking’ appeared.
I want to know that this creative thinking also includes in internet property.

Monday, October 26, 2015

Blog assignment W2

W2
Wikipedia
The Wikimedia Foundation, NGO under which Wikipedia and its related projects operate. They said that “Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of knowledge. That’s our commitment.” However, this is not really new. Wikipedia has vision like concerning for the sum of all knowledge. And they believe it can bring about world peace and goodwill would be necessary to its production and some consequence of participation. Wikipedia is based on online collaborative editing tool, and “encyclopedia”. Wiki as an encyclopedia means that evidence of a geeky sort of linguistic humor and also prompts the question of whether a relatively open-to-all. And wiki can be a high-quality reference work. Some said Wikipedia can be difficultly getting a sense of the English community. There are many possibilities that people can be active contributors who are familiar with the basic practices. It includes smaller communities on the scale of hundreds or dozens of members within various boundaries. And the English Wikipedia is part of a larger community of multilingual encyclopedias and Wikimedia projects. Collective intelligence includes many aspects of cultural backgrounds. We can approach Wikipedia’s article based on diverse information. Core of Wikipedia is collaborative principles. In addition to millions of encyclopedic articles, Wikipedia is suffused with a coexisting web of practices, discussion, and policy pages, and can be touched by Wikipedia projects. We can make “the more things change, the more they stay the same.” Therefore, Wikipedia have to being approached through universal access and vision of goodwill. Technological innovation can make this vision. And by using technology, Wikipedia is inspired and spread.

Predicting the Future, Wikipedia community is going on during innovation technology.  Encyclopedia helps us look back, look forward and struggle in their present to implement a universal vision. People try and try again because for a long time we didn’t can do. And that story is revealing in at least two ways. First of all, unfulfilled visions, failed projects and obscure predictions tell us that something about those people and their time. The history speaks to notion of an ambitious project of human knowledge production and dissemination. Secondly, we have a question, why did it take so long for the vision to be realized.

The result of technology make us help come together not real but online without waste of any time and space. I think It can be named shrinking community. Our collaborative intelligence is also realized by diverse devices which can access whenever and wherever. It means I can do read articles and edit more frequently. However, there are some regulations in Wikipedia. How can we enact those laws? I guess till now, English Wikipedia is standard. But, it is not reasonable. Because our collective information and intelligence made by many people who have diverse background, it is not a belonging of “English Wikipedia”. Therefore, we have to make sure what is good regulations.

Friday, October 23, 2015

Online Blogging Assignment ( W2 )

<1>
This Document said at first , it announce history and community to us. Wikipedia is more powerful than simple encyclopedia. Wikipedia have a powers that activity of community and faith of collaborative of culture. Wikipedia is not discrimination of culture aspects. For example ‘white pride’ or ‘nazism’ … So it inform to characters of wikipeda. At first is vision of Wikipedia. It is now cost and nonprofit organization. So every human being can freely enjoy editing or sharing sum of all knowledge. Good point of Wikipedia is share and focus on problems of global aspect. Controversing and conversation , many single human have deeply shares this concern. This is cause of successing Wikipedia that the inspiration for free and open source Wikipedia might be the best stage of worldwide. Second character is the power of community. Only English Wikipedia users are 41,393 people in September 2008. Login your ID , you can freely editing or writing or reading .. all of activity is for free all users. This high level of freedom is more appeal many people. Moreover Wikipedia have many lingual version. So you can freely enjoy by your own languages. The third point is function of encyclopedia. This show that mean of wikipeda, “Wiki Wiki” means “Super Fast” in Hawaiian language. So wikipedai is result of that collaborative WIKIWIKIWEB softare in 1995 to indicate the ease with which one could edit pages. Wikpedia is WikiWiki + Encyclopedia . This mean that Wikipedia have cohesiveness of massive knowledge and diffusion force and exportability of online networking system. In conclusion, if wiki page can be read, it can be edited in any websites. With a Wikipedia , many users enter a simplicated markup into web page. This using the Wikipedia provide add a numbered list other web browser. This system of linking is has a number of the power of sharing. Final point of Wikipedia is the culture. this document is focused on Wikipedia’s collaborative culture. variety wealth of matefiral is a chance our interst in understanding how people make sense of their experionces together.


<2>
Entersting point is rolling system of Wikipedia. Many people said that Wikipedia is alike online encyclopedia. Seeing many of articles , there are so many links about each content per one articles. This is very interesting point. Because normal encyclopedia is not rolling system. Just combination of many people’s knowledge. But Wikipedia is not just online encyclopedia but massive online connective system based on link. If you can seeing any other one article in Wikipedia , you would find something blue underline and related to references. Every online articles may related to Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia have references system.

<3>
I think this culture and high level of freedom, Wikipedia must have to something regulated system. But this standard of regulating is what ? people have many thinking and influenced massive aspects. So there is no neutrarity line, this is very ambiguous problem. For example, South korea have south korea’s law based on culture of South Korea, Unite States have USA’s law based on USA. But Wikipedia is assembly of worldwide users. So editing something articles, there is available to collision of other users. Actually, Wikipedia is maybe not allowed to write about some topic , for example opinion of political problem , and blame of religion.. because this formed article is very sensitive cause of many problem.



Sunday, October 18, 2015

W6 Reading - chapter 3


 
Good Faith Collaboration
 
 
This consists of introduction the epistemic stance of neutral point of view, the intersubjective stance of good faith , conclusion.
Also, this divided of A Caveat about Collaborative Culture, Wiki, Practice, and Policy, Wikipedia Policy, Guidelines, and the Five Pillars, Neutral Point Of View and Good Faith: An Example in introduction. and the intersubjective stance of good faith divided Assuming the Best of Others, Patience, Civility , Humor.
 
 
Introduction
Before engaging with Wikipedia’s collaborative culture, it is worthwhile to outline such an undertaking.
 
Authors have commented on the variety of approaches to “culture” across disciplines including anthropology, communications, and history.
 
Collaboration can be an equally provocative term prompting debate. and Wikipedia is like the Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) communities. The open source software process is not confusion, free-for-all in which everyone has equal power and influence.
And is certainly not an idyllic community of like-minded friends in which consensus reigns and agreement is easy.
 
However, much more is involved in Wikipedia production than decision making.
 
Therefore, my use of the term collaborative culture refers to a set of estimations, values, meanings, and actions pertaining to working together within a community.
 
They feel some degree of social connection with one another.
By these criteria, Wikipedia would qualify.
 
I agree this sentence.
wikipedia is made by many people. also, wikipedia manager check their editing.
So, wikipedia is qualify.
 
Wikis were born of an support for a change in software development with respect to how application requirements were perceived and satisfied.
In the 1990s a new way of addressing software requirements was becoming popular: the “design pattern.”
Furthermore, requirements would be satisfied differently too.
 
A benefit of this approach is that at each step there is always some working code satisfying the requirements encountered so far, and the software is easily prolonged and adapted as requirements change, as they are bound to do. However, there was still a need for quickly, flexibly, and collaboratively discussing software, design patterns, and the principles of this new paradigm.
 
So, if we don't information, we can't learn from our history, and are repeat it.
 
This needs to live life as well as wikipedia
wikipedia needs practice.
I am also difficult to wikipedia first. but now, I am practicing. so, I have more learned how to use wikipedia.
 
Wikipedia’s many norms are also commonly grouped together.

There are five pillars.
1.Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers.
2. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view.
3. Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit.
4.Wikipedia has a code of conduct.
5. Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here.
 
The stance of neutrality appears that contributors should give up efforts to convince others of what is right or true, and instead focus on a neutral presentation of what is commonly understood about that topic.
 
 The technical feature of hypertext links can provide a calming effect.
However, one should be careful in articles about controversy to avoid “content” or “POV” forking in which two articles with opposing points of view arise in place of a single NPOV article.
 
If the stance of neutrality implies a willingness to put aside one’s own “point of view,” an apology is a potentially rich example of good faith.
 
 
The Epistemic Stance of Neutral Point Of View
This notion of neutrality is also difficult because it seems impossible to explain without recourse to an equally problematic constellation of concepts.
Another source of confusion is the subject of the alleged neutrality.
 
The concept of neutrality was also absent at the birth of the wiki, which, as described, was a platform for advocating a particular type of software development.
 
Resultingly, this interest in unbiased, or at least less biased, claims about an understandable, or at least partially so, objective universe is central to Wikipedia collaborative culture.
 
To have neutral point of view is not easy.
I am also difficult when I found article sources related to wikipedia.
Every data can have objective information and a subjective opinion.
so, We should be able to distinguish between the two.
 
 
The Intersubjective Stance of Good Faith
In Wikipedia’s collaborative culture, the scope of an open perspective includes not only the subject of collaboration, claims about the world, but also one’s collaborators as well.
 
 
Online communities often suffer the effects of Godwin’s Law.
A possible counteracting norm of this tendency is the guideline “Assume Good Faith.”
But before examining this norm in detail it is worthwhile to first note that good faith is associated with at least three collaborative wiki norms: good faith, “Assume Good Faith,” and “Assume the Assumption of Good Faith.”
 
We love accumulating, ordering, structuring, and making freely available what knowledge we have in the form of an encyclopedia of unprecedented size.

So, wikipedia is developed more and more.  
 
A deficient collaborative culture might be characterized as temperamental and brittle because participants are uneasy and defensive.
Patience is further implicated by “Assume Good Faith,” since frustrating behavior resulting from ignorance is remedied in time.
Wikipedia is not therapy.
The technology of wiki itself furthers patience as a change can always be reversed without fear of permanent damage.
 
Not surprisingly, the balance of patience to be extended continues to be a topic of discussion.
    
 
Conclusion
Wikis are a relatively novel way of working together.
Wiki communities are also a fascinating subject of study because one can closely follow the emergence of and discourse on their culture.
 
In the case of the English Wikipedia, there is a collaborative culture that asks its participants to assume two postures: : a stance of neutral point of view on matters of knowledge, and a stance of good faith toward one’s fellow contributors.
 

I learn five pillars through "good faith collaboration" reading.
Apart from this five pillars, What formula exists?
I wonder this part.
Wikipedia have some formula to remember.
Through some reading, we are learning the formulas and informations.
I am good because we can learn about wikipedia.
 



 

Saturday, October 10, 2015

W5 readings


Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources
 
This show to me how to identify reliable sources of wikipedia.
 
This say Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered.
 
Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
I experienced received message that writing which I editing is deleted.
When I edited wikipedia first , I didn't know rule editing of wikipedia.
So, I wrote unsouced or poorly sourced materals.
Now, After a few experiences, I overcome this part.
 
Contents of this reading are Overview, Some types of sources, Questionable and self-published sources, Reliability in specific contexts, See also, Notes, External links.
 
At first context "Overview" explain that articles should be based on reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
Overview consists of Definition of a source, Definition of published, Context matters.
In definition of a source, The word "source" has three related meanings.
That is the piece of work itself, the creator of the work and the publisher of the work.
and In definition of published, this explain that like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited.
It teaches how to use media sources.
Also, In context matters, this say The reliability of a source depends on context.
So, context is important thing.
 
At second context "Some types of sources" consists of Scholarship, News organizations, E-commerce sources and Biased or opinionated sources.
Various wikipedia articles depends on scholarly materal. and the sources
should be appropriate and objective.
Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible.
Materials such as screening articles by the science, books, papers or study
or the material is published in a reputable peer-reviewed sources or well-regarded academic press are considered to be reliable.
This is objective information. So it is good tip to me.
 
News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content.
So, news sources considered to be unreliable.
I first know this part. I thought news sources are always right.
because news pass the lately information.
but, because news add opinion content, This may not be true.
and e-commerce links should be replaced with non-commercial reliable sources if available.
Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs.
 
 
 
At third context "Questionable and self-published sources" consist of Questionable sources, Self-published sources (online and paper), Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves.
questionable sources are generally incorrect controversial claim about living or dying organization, as well as more wrong definition and including a claim for personal.
anyone use information in blog for aditing. a few blogger is expert about own's blog contents. So, sources in this blog can be right souce.
these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control.
when I adit article, I am not looking information that I want to find in blog.
I thought blog is unconditionally personal opinion. so, this is not objective information.
But, out of blog, a few blog have professional writing. I learned this part.
 
At last, "reiability in specific contexts" consist of biographies of living persons, Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, Medical claims, Quotations, Academic consensus, Usage by other sources, Statements of opinion, Breaking news.
 
biographies of living persons, editors have to take especially care when writing biographical material about living persons.
Unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed.
 
Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources.
 
Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately.
While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.
secondary source should be use rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
I have a question this part. I want to know accurately about Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. I want to know its exact mean.
and why secondary sources more important than primary.
Also,
 
In Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, “Reputable tertiary sources, such as lower-level textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited. However, although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy.
 
Everyone can look wikipedia. so, information of wikipedia is difficult.
then, they must use more systematic mechanism. but this sentence say Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy.
I wonder meaning of this sentence.
 
In medical claims, this say it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge.
 
the accuracy of quoted material is very important. so actual source of the text have to make clear.
 
In Breaking news, reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time.
 
As I read this "Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources", I felt important exact source once more. also I learned sources are very various.
 
 
 

Sunday, October 4, 2015

online blog writing assignment-chapter2


 
 
This context is consist of The Pursuit of the Universal Encyclopedia, The Index Card and Microfilm, Paul Otlet and the Universal Bibliographic Repertory, H. G. Wells and the “World Brain”, Digital Computers and Networks, Project Xanadu, Project Gutenberg, Interpedia, Distributed Encyclopedia, Nupedia, GNUPedia/GNE, The Web and Wikis, Wikipedia, Conclusion: Predicting the Future, Reading the Past
A Timeline of Events in chapter2.
 
This reading say descriptive of the ultimate aim of Wikipedia is sum of all human knowledge. and Encyclopedic Visions is scientific Dictionaries and Enlightenment Culture. “Creating a world encyclopedia, much less world peace, is a difficult task and the trivia found on Wikipedia is a source of delight to some and derision to others.” I agree on this part. at first, I am only difficult editing wikipedia. but I feel really great when completing this editing successfully even though editing is difficult still. mission of wikipedia is to give freely the sum of the world’s knowledge to every single person on the planet in the language of their choice, under a free license, so that they can modify, adapt, reuse, or redistribute it, at will. I think mission of wikipedia is Conducting greatly.
Now, all the world people use wikipedia freely. This is wikipedia's attraction.
But each of us can try each day, in our editing, in our mailing list posts, in our internet relay chats, and in our private emails, to reach for a higher standard than the Internet usually encourages, a standard of rational benevolence and love.
wikipedia has rule. if rule is not observed, it deletes.
I have experience that my article has been deleted.
So, If your editing is not deleted, you should continue to practice and try.
 
This technological inspiration and aspiration for global accord is quite in keeping with the heritage of Wikipedia described in this chapter.
 
This reading say the idea of a personal encyclopedic device is frequently attributed to Vannevar Bush. he famously outlined the idea for a memex, an “enlarged intimate supplement” to memory. This was envisioned as an electromechanical microfilm device. However, the memex was proposed in a larger context of lesser-known microfilm technologies and innovators.
 
As a boy, the Belgian Paul Otlet (18681944) played at the task of extracting and organizing knowledge. At the age of eighteen he wrote in his diary, “I write down everything that goes through my mind, but none of it has a sequel. That is, to gather together my material of all kinds, and connect in with everything else I had done up till now."
Later in life, in 1918, he wrote his vision was supported by “three great trends” of his time: “the power of associations, technological progress and the democratic orientation of institutions.”
How could one possibly refer to and access all of this information? Otlet proposed a classification scheme which anticipated more recent information technologies.
This primary tenet of Otlet’s schemes permitted one to “detach what the book amalgamates, to reduce all that is complex to its elements and to devote a page [or index card] to each.”
 
H. G. Wells is the English novelist famous for his science fiction.
He was also captivated by advances in technology and the notion of a universal reference work. Like Otlet, Wells’s notion of a universal reference work was not an immediate and solitary brainstorm.
First, Wells wrote of the implications of index cards in his outline of a Modern Utopia in 1905. Second, since at least 1928, Wells had been advocating for an internationalist revolution, one world government, or “Open Conspiracy.”36H.G. Wells, “The Open Conspiracy,”
Third, Wells was beginning to think of artifacts and institutions as a type of “super-human memory” that would prompt a mental expansion for which “the only visible limit is our planet and the entire human species.”
Yet unlike Otlet’s efforts, the World Brain never materialized beyond the ardent vision of an author.
 
we can discern a technologically inspired vision of a universal encyclopedia.
Otlet and Wells this collaboration was also part of their internationalist commitment.
Yet, in the first half of the twentieth century, these visions were never satisfactorily fulfilled. This vision included collaborative capabilities.
However, in the latter half of the twentieth century a new technology, the computer network, engendered new possibilities and thus inspired new directions in the creation of encyclopedias. As I read this sentences, I can know that started process of wikipedia. Wikipedia that start only thinking was possible thanks to digital computer and network.
 
Project Xanadu has had a complicated history of redesigns and attempts at commercial viability. Yet despite such difficulties, as conceived there were significant parallels between this work and its predecessors.
Networked system we use today, it was the wiki that made a dynamic and versioned Internet hypertext system widely available.
I first heard "Xanadu". Project Xanadu is the original hypertext and interactive multimedia system. it is compared with wikipedia.
 
Second line of digital lineage originates in Project Gutenberg. Project Gutenberg was responsible for one of the first publicly available reference works on the Internet, or at least part of it.
Aside from the two obvious connections between Project Gutenberg and Wikipedia, there is a lesson here central to a theme of this chapter.
This reading informs many projects. it is not familiar to me. but I can a little know this projects.
 
Unlike Project Gutenberg, the Interpedia project was conceived of as an encyclopedia, but this conceptualization was confused by a plethora of technical options.
 
The notion of an Internet-based encyclopedia was no longer novel, and as the 1990s progressed the Web became the obvious platform for any such project.
Encyclopedia having only idea have been reality.
So, Now many people can live convenient life.
 
Nupedia was inspired by other open source projects like Linux and the Open Directory project; the goal was to be open to all expert contribution and free of charge to all users, and Sanger’s quoted aspiration was for Nupedia to become “the world’s largest Encyclopedia.”
 
Under the aegis of Stallman’s GNU organization the GNUPedia would implement a proposal Stallman had drafted in 1999 for a “free universal encyclopedia and learning resource."
 
World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee writes that his motivation was to design the Web as “a universal medium for sharing information.”
Nupedia contributors resisted Nupedia being associated with a Web site in the wiki format. Therefore, the new project was given the name “Wikipedia”
Through this 'the web and wikis', I learned origin of wikipedia.
 
Since its start, Wikipedia’s growth has been extraordinary.
 
Struggling in their present to implement a universal encyclopedic vision is not easy. also, for a long time, no one got it quite right.
But people try and try again. And that story is revealing in at least two ways.
First, even unfulfilled visions, failed projects, and erroneous predictions tell us something about those people and their time. Second, a question throughout this chapter is why did it take so long for the vision to be realized?
In any case, the projects discussed in this chapter are attempts at realizing a universal vision, encompassing the goodwill of collaborators and reaching toward global accord.
 
Through this reading, I am learning wikipedia.
This teaches detailed wikipedia to me. So, I feel happy learning new informs.
But, I don't understand Distributed Encyclopedia.
I want to know A little more information.
There is sentence The “closest descendent” known to Barger was the Distributed Encyclopedia.
I want to know this meaning.
Before, When I read chapter 1, I wondered how did founder of wikipedia flash upon idea that thought to create wikipedia.
through I read this reading, I was happy that curiosity is solved a little better.