Friday, November 6, 2015

W9 readings



Chapter 4
The Puzzle of Openness


This consists of Open Content Communities , Discussing Openness and Conclusion.
And detailed contents are Transparency and Integrity, Non-Discrimination and Non-Interference of Open Content Communities.
Can Anyone Really Edit?, Interfacing with the Outside World, Bureaucratization and Enclaves and Gender of Discussing Openness.
 

This reading starts "Trolls are the driving force of Wikipedia."
This chapter are evidence that openness has advantages and disadvantages.
 
Wikipedia’s claim of openness is seen in its motto: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.” But what does “openness” actually mean? Because of the ascendancy of FOSS, open is now a buzzword, becoming a prefix  to even such well-established notions as democracy and religion.
To be fair, Wikipedia has not helped this confusion given its early rule of “Ignore All Rules.” Granted, it is clever to have a rule dismissing rules, and its substance is of merit. it is good merit to delete to confusing things.
I think this occurs Wikipedia success.
The essay “What ‘Ignore All Rules’ Means” explains that novices should feel free to contribute, don’t be overly legalistic but work in the spirit of improving the encyclopedia, and there is no substitute for good judgment.
Yet, these difficulties do not mean the notion of openness should be jettisoned altogether
 
<Openness and its related values are then considered in light of four cases in which we see the Wikipedia community wrestling with how it conceives of itself>
 
In the first case I return to the question of whether Wikipedia is really something “anyone can edit”? That is, when Wikipedia implemented new technical features to help limit vandalization of the site, did it make Wikipedia more or less open? In the second case I describe the way in which a maturing open content community's requirement to interact with the world beyond Wikipedia affects its openness.
Third, I briefly review concerns of how bureaucratization within Wikipedia might threaten openness.
Finally, I explore a case in which a closed (female-only) group is set up outside of, and perhaps because of, the “openness” of the larger Wikipedia community.
 
 
Open Content Communities
 
<More specifically, an open content community is characterized by:>
*Open content: provides content that is available under licenses like those that satisfy the Open Source Definition.
*Transparency: makes its processes, rules, determinations, and their rationales available.
*Integrity: ensures the integrity of the processes and the participants’ contributions.
*Nondiscrimination: prohibits arbitrary discrimination against persons, groups, or characteristics not relevant to the community’s scope of activity. Persons and proposals should be judged on their merits. Leadership should be based on meritocratic or representative processes.
*Noninterference: the linchpin of openness, if a constituency disagrees with the implementation of the previous three values, the open content license permits the constituents to take the content and commence work under their own conceptualization without interference. While “forking” is often complained about in open communities. it is an essential characteristic and major benefit of open communities as well.
 
Although the first and last characteristics provide a “bright line” with which one can distinguish between instances of open content by their copyright licenses and the consequent ability to fork, the social values of transparency, integrity, and nondiscrimination do not provide an equally clear demarcation.
 
The benefits of openness are not limited to software.
In this view Wikipedia is an unsuitable case of the open source model because the merit of software developers and their code can be judged by objective standards but knowledge claims cannot.
 
“People love to compare Wikipedia to Open Source but guess what: bad, incorrect code doesn’t compile.
 
Wikipedia is probably the best-known example in the wider free culture movement today.
Wikipedia shares information of many people.
So, This information is more and more wider than other encyclopedia.
I am also used to Wikipedia. Even though I uses Wikipedia in class, I am finding many article and creating empty article.
through my experience, Information of Wikipedia is vary.
Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers.” This is further reflected in the famous Wikipedia maxim.
In wikipedia, there should be no elites. Nevertheless fears of a cabal continue to arise every so often.
Extreme Unction’s First Law notes that “if enough people act independently towards the same goal, the end result is indistinguishable from a conspiracy.
 
“One important thing to note is that if advocates of some viewpoint wish to claim that we are biased, and we are unable to come to a consensus accommodation of some kind, they will be free to use our content as a foundation, and to build their own encyclopedia with various articles added or removed.
 
 
Discussing Openness
 
The English Wikipedia declares itself as “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.”
Even those who always log in might still support allowing others to edit without logging in.
 
Individuals who wish to protect their privacy would be better off creating a pseudonym with which to edit Wikipedia content.
I call to mind that if I don't log in, Wikipedia is made to pseudonym.
Unfortunately, Wikipedia is continually vandalized.
When it becomes clear that a specific user is persistently abusive, administrators may block his or her editing for a specified period, or in serious cases they might institute a life-time ban.
To me less confident in English, This seems to my strong helper.
Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia.
I learn that even though wikipedia is free and open, it is not a forum for unregulated free speech.
 
Openness refers not only to the number of people who can edit, but a holistic assessment of the entire process.
Wikipedia can know to opinion of other people.
So, I think that Wikipedia is excellent work. because it is a encyclopedia made through opinion of other people.
 
Within the community, but mostly from without, there was much discussion about Wikipedia’s adherence to its principles of openness and veracity, and its responsibility to the safety of others since it is not only subject to influence from the outside world, but can also affect the world it documents.
 
Wikis do not add unnecessary process in and of themselves: they are simple, accessible, flexible, quick, and cumulative.
community process need not be overly specified in fear of a mistake since content changes are easily reverted.
I like to this advantage of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is no exception: despite the norm of “Avoid Instruction Creep,” the “ratio of policy citations to talk edits” is increasing
 
Some degree of policy is necessary in any community, and bureaucratization is a common feature of organizational development.
 
Even in the face of a proliferation of process, the open content community values of transparency and integrity are largely preserved.
 
One should not be surprised that a source of contention in open content communities is when a subset of community members creates a closed space.
There are many private, semi-private and secret lists in which wikimedians make decisions with each other without ever telling anyone or explaining.
I first heard "wikimedian" through this part.
For while cabal formation is a seemingly inevitable structural result of group decision making, and legal threats are an inescapable reality of living in a litigious society, enclaves are purposely chosen by a subset of the community in seeming contradiction with the values of openness and equality.
 
 
Offlist chat about the recent discussions on systemic gender bias in Wikipedia made it clear that a number of women were not comfortable contributing to the conversation there. That is WikiChix. Yet, WikiChix’s exclusion of males, rather than being open and pro-female, is obviously problematic with respect to transparency and nondiscrimination
 
Conclusion
 
Wikipedia is an example of an open content community.
Ultimately, an important descriptive feature of an open content community is a lot of discussion about its values and how to balance them. By this measure, Wikipedia certainly qualifies.
 
 
Actually, This reading is difficult to me.
Even though accurate interpretation is difficult, it’s convenient to understand because I am learning about wikipedia through class now.
In this reading, there is “Enclaves and Gender”.
But , This " Unclave and Gender" is unfamiliar term.
I don't understand well this part.
Other parts are understanad because of learning and understanding through Wikipedia.
I don't understand well that gender is what association with wikipedia.
Everyone can edit wikipedia. But, this reading say gender bias occurs.
Gender bias is obviously problem.
So, I want to know what is gender bias in Wikipedia. 


No comments:

Post a Comment