Wednesday, December 23, 2015

W9

The Puzzle of Openness

I use the word community to speak of a group of interdependent people who “participate together in discussion and decision making and who share certain practices that both define the community and are restored by it.” Wikipedia community members do share common practices and norms; as we’ve seen, they share a collaborative culture. Furthermore, the Wikipedia community can be further understood as “prosocial” in that it exhibits behavior that is intentional, voluntary, and of benefit to others. But even if we can defensibly claim it is a prosocial community, can anyone claim that it is truly open? Such a question requires a better sense of what open means.

However, there are many questions about the openness: what is the scope of “anyone”? How to balance values?... Wikipedia is an example of an open content community. it can be difficult to balance the associated values of transparency, integrity, and nondiscrimination, as well as other concerns such as free speech and the safety of people and the project itself. Furthermore, boundaries are a fundamental feature of any community, even for those that aspire to openness because it is rarely a simple binary of open or closed. We have to concrete successful open system one by one.

W6

Good Faith Collaboration
There are two complementary postures at the heart of Wikipedia collaboration: the stances of “Neutral Point of View” (NPOV) and good faith. Whereas other communities may have a culture of good faith (i.e., assume good faith on the part of others, and acting with patience, civility, and humor), few are concerned with producing an encyclopedia.  One of the many contentious articles I follow on Wikipedia is that on evolution. Frequently those with criticisms of evolution, predominately religious literalists, attempt to include these criticisms in the “Evolution” article. Yet, Wikipedia articles are not forums for debate, nor are their discussion pages
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. In Wikipedia’s “Writing for the Enemy” essay, one is encouraged to see things as others might. Note that writing for the enemy does not necessarily mean one believes the opposite of the “enemy” POV. The writer may be unsure what position he wants to take, or simply have no opinion on the matter. What matters is that you try to “walk a mile in their” shoes instead of judging them.
We discuss culture because of the characters of article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's culture and practice influence to me by the way that I approach controversy or so on. Good faith collaboration is needed for Wiki community. Through various articles, there are many opinion that give and take.
.”


Monday, December 14, 2015

W7 Reading


W7 : Why Free Culture Matters ? 

Preface

Software of Internet has no capacity of Publish. So It is not affect other people that 
no progress to Internet. and In past, if you don't like On-line , you turn off modem.
Pogue speak that Our mechanical activity is not good us. because exposured our life
by on-line system cause consistence localized situation. So Pogue is negative to 
on-line sociology. But his suggestion is valid only in 1999. 

Depending on development of Modern Society, Power Of On-line network became 
more bigger than past. If we don't contact on-line network system just like turn off 
our modem, we isolate brand-new information and communication. 
Today is Free-Culture Society. This culture is based on On-line networking system 
having numerous diffusion and sharing power.

Writer remind to culture about a tradition that has always been its own. Thus,
tradition on the basis of valuses. those are the values of freedom.he believe those are valuse of our past that will need to be defended in our future. Free culture has been ore past, but it will only be our future if we change the path we are on right now.
He said that free cuture that i defend in this document is a balance both anarchy and control.

Intro

The main point of this Intro is " Common sense revolts at the idea"
Showing a example " Wright Brothers" , This is how the law usually works.
At the first time the wright brothers invented the airplane, USA law held that a poperty
ownter presumptively owned not just the surface of his land, based on " and idenfinite
extent, upwards. " after many years, scholars puzzled about how best to interpret idea that rights in land ran to the heaven.
Thsi is how situation happen when there's no one powerful on the other side of the change.
The other example is Edwin Howard Armstrong. He is one of america's forgotten
inventor. He became to the great inventor after the titans Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell.
This many examples are how the law sometimes works. At the beginning or our history,
and for just about the whole of our tradition, noncommercial culture was essentially unregulated.

Conclusion

This document shows something learning point through many example.
I think that the past century except from internet. there are many innovation. but
there are less proof or basis. but for On-line centruy, there are more easy for inventor.
because there are many connection other expert and other materials.
So On-line networking system help us a lot aspect in everytime.



Friday, December 4, 2015

Chapter 7

 
Chapter 7
Encyclopedic Anxiety
 
 
The Normativeness of the Reference Work 
At first, This reading mention dictionaries and encyclopedias.
encyclopedia has been more willing to associate the range of their subject, and its treatment, with a larger social program. One reason for this difference between dictionaries and encyclopedias might simply be space.
Wikipedia is situated much more like paper dictionaries than encyclopedias given its near-infinite number of pages.
and this reading say that reason reference works are thought to be normative is that they were marketed as resources for children.
I am editing wikipedia these days. and I practice adding reference in wikipedia.
we should bring reference from objective source.
 
Bias: Progressive and Conservative
encyclopedia has two perspectives. one is progressive perspective and the other is conservative perspective.
Accusations of bias are surprising in their specificity and passion, and prior to Wikipedia. But, we must be careful not to divide the field into extremes, in this case between conservative and progressive poles.
this reading say because an encyclopedia is a mirror of contemporary learning, it offers a valuable opportunity to examine prevailing attitudes and beliefs in a variety of fields. I think that encyclopedia should have vary perspective because many people see. then, we see encyclopedia that has more objective information.
 
Criticisms of Wikipedia and “Web 2.0”
An informative resource for this chapter is Wikipedia’s “Criticism of Wikipedia
I wonder why wikipedia and web2.0 are criticised. wikipedia and web 2.0 is helpful for us. this reading say that Criticism of the concept: the wiki model, usefulness as a reference, suitability as an encyclopedia, anti-elitism as a weakness, systemic bias in coverage, systemic bias in perspective, difficulty of fact-checking, use of dubious sources, exposure to vandals, exposure to political operatives and advocates, prediction of failure, privacy concerns, quality concerns, threat to traditional publishers, “waffling” prose and “antiquarianism,” anonymous editing, copyright issues, the “hive mind.”, etc.
 
In the following sections, there are four themes that are collaborative practice, universal vision, encyclopedic impulse, and technological inspiration.
 
-Collaborative Practice
There are elements to this in the arguments about Wikipedia,
Describing how knowledge is constituted can be difficult, but one can identify three ways for how we might think of knowledge production throughout history.
First, we must admit that the hermit’s encyclopedia, devoid of all contact with the words of others, would be of little use.
Second, the production of a reference work eventually exceeded the capability of any one person.
Finally, there is Wikipedia and other open contents.
In wikipedia, we can practice together. but, some wikipedians can have other opinion. so, after I edit any part, other person can modify.
In this parts, person who edited own writing may be angry.
The important point was that Wikipedians typically rejected any characterization of Wikipedia as some sort of smart mob. and This alleged “core belief” is not one which is held by me, nor as far as I know, by any important or prominent Wikipedians.
 
-Universal Vision
A simple summary of the universal encyclopedic vision is its aspiration of expansiveness. The universal vision persisted into the network age, becoming more modest in its hope of prompting world peace, but pushing accessibility even further. Critics of Wikipedia find this to be a cockeyed dream that is quickly becoming an all-too-real nightmare, and liken the universal vision to failed utopias and feared dystopias. Wikipedia is said to favor mediocrity over expertise.
wikipedia is created by everyone. Interestingly, critics and supporter alike recognize threads of Enlightenment and modern values in contemporary knowledge work. In this argument about how Wikipedia is collaboratively produced we see a larger argument about authority, its institutions, individual autonomy, as well as possible consequences for content production.
 
-Encyclopedic Impulse
Wikipedians can be a similarly compulsive and eccentric lot.
So much so that some refer to themselves as Wikipediholics with a case of editcountitis, “a serious disease consisting of an unhealthy obsession with the number of edits you have made to Wikipedia.”
One’s edit count is a sort of coin of the realm. some might save a Wikipedia page after every tweak, whereas others may edit “offline” and paste it back when done in a single edit. This is advantage of wikipedia. Encyclopedic impulse also criticism of wikipedia.
 
-Technological Inspiration
The wikipedia is now a standard source of reference for millions of people including school children doing their homework and post-graduates doing research. Inevitably, in an experiment on this scale lots of entries have turned out to be wrong, mostly without mal-intent.
I think that Technological inspiration is limited in wikipedia. Usually, reference of wikipedia is limited from news, book, website, journal. so, wikipedia is criticised about technological inspiration.
Yet the critics don’t accept even this more moderated appreciation of Wikipedia as being imperfect but surprisingly good. and Orlowski writes such sentiments are akin to saying: “Yes it’s garbage, but it’s delivered so much faster!”
 
This reading say "although technology can inspire, it can cause others to despair."
 
 
Conclusion
I generalize the argument by briefly looking to the past for how reference works have been involved in a larger conservative versus progressive tension, and by asking how Wikipedia might be entangled in a similar debate today.
On this point, the conversation about Wikipedia can be understood with respect to a handful of themes. Clearly, the way in which content is produced has changed.
 
I don't understand that criticism about universal vision.
this chapter say that universal encyclopedic vision is its aspiration of expansiveness. I think that it is good for encyclopedic to expansive information.
but, In this reading, it express that universal vision is one of Criticisms of wikipedia. I want to know what this mean exactly.