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.

.”

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.

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.

 

Chapter 5

Chapter 5

The Challenges of Consensus 

In this chapter, It says to us that it identifies the difficulties of consensus decision making, and its meaning and practice for collaboration at the English Wikipedia.

 

The Case of Disambiguation

In the history of the encyclopedia much has been made of the attempts to organize knowledge and how that dream was eventually superseded by simple alphabetical order.

It is really interesting fact. Even though we naturally see the encyclopedia now, it is gathering of alphabet. It is great thing. but, we don't appreciate.

In the case of a collision Wikipedia will likely offer the reader a “disambiguation” link at the top of an article or a whole page with a list of links to more specific articles, or both.

“Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single title could be associated with more than one article.

However, should these disambiguators be applied in every case for consistency’s sake, or just those for which there is already a preexisting article? Answering this question, and thousands of others like it, is an integral part of Wikipedia collaboration.

So then, what is consensus and how do you know you’ve reached it? This question eventually reached the Arbitration Committee: “a panel of experienced users that exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia disputes that neither communal discussion, administrators, nor mediation have been able to resolve.”

 

“Rough” Consensus

The Wiktionary definitions for consensus speak of “general agreement,” “without active opposition to the proposed course of action.”

consensus is overwhelming agreement “which does not mean unanimity"

consensus certainly seems like an appropriate means for decision making in a community with egalitarian values and a culture of good faith.

The IETF is one of the oldest existing collaborative institutions on the Internet — it can be said to have built the Internet. And the W3C might be thought of as an institutional fork resulting from, in part, frustration over the slow pace of work at the IETF.

This “IETF Credo” would become one of the foundational aphorisms of collaborative culture on the Internet. Furthermore, this simple statement reflects the egalitarianism.

I first listen to this word "IETF", "W3C" . IETF is abbreviation of Internet Engineering Task Force.

It developes Internet standards to facilitate the use of the Internet in the United States. and W3C is abbreviation of World Wide Web Consortium.
I am interesting about IETF, W3C. these keep order in internet. 

 

Deliberation and Openness

There are many methods for making group decisions; one is flip a coin, vote, or seek consensus.

As Wikipedia’s “Consensus” policy notes: “Achieving consensus requires serious treatment of every group member’s considered opinion…. In the ideal case, those who wish to take up some action want to hear those who oppose it, because they count on the fact that the ensuing debate will improve the consensus.”

Its openness is particularly problematic because it is susceptible to trolling and “forum shopping.”

 

It is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue.”

Wikipedia’s decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day.

 

Time and Precedence

Consider a Wikipedia discussion related to how annoying it is when a bookmark or link to a Web page no longer works.

As in many of the issues facing Wikipedia, Wikipedians must achieve a delicate balance, this time between rehashing tired issues and reconsidering vital ones.

The IETF and W3C have some means for judging the merit of an issue.

First, working group charters are carefully constructed in order to focus on issues that are amenable to resolution within a specified time frame.

Second, the working group chair has a critical job in summarizing and recording discussion.

Despite all the focus on conversation and the cacophony that sometimes accompanies the consensus process, silence is one of the greatest challenges successful decision making

 

The Facilitator 

A poll which is now visible here included a question of whether television episode articles should only be disambiguated when necessary.

The poll was well-publicized. Nonetheless, a few members of the minority have declared that there was no consensus and that the dispute is still open.

Of course, consensus does not mean unanimity, but as long as we were short of unanimity,

The core issue of this debate, how to name articles about television episodes, is really quite unimportant in the greater scheme of Wikipedia.

Most importantly, how Wikipedians can convince a recalcitrant minority when this is the case?

As Yaksha noted, he believed there was consensus and began to rename articles to disambiguate only when necessary,

but “Elonka, however, claimed that there was no consensus, to move the articles, and that the moves were disruptive.” And so the “edit war” began

Yaksha and Elonka is minority.

The final decision notes that “It is the responsibility of the administrators and other responsible parties to close extended policy discussions they are involved in.”

An established and respected user who is not an administrator could close a discussion.

However, it is still difficult to see how this situation could have been avoided

Fortunately, Wikipedian Ace Class Shadow advise some useful advice while recognizing there is no perfect solution:

one could use templates to mark that a discussion page is now archived, or one could “ask an impartial closer to do the deed, stating that you’ll respect their common sense judgment.

I don't know in detail about wikipedia. So, Which part does discussion of wikipedia mean? Even though I don't know that which part means, there are some ways to solution. I learned how to solution conflict of discussion in detail.

 

Polling and Voting

Consensus is the preferred method of making decisions at Wikipedia

Yet, polling is an available technique within the consensus process.

How is polling different from voting? While people may confuse polling with voting.

polling should prompt and shape discussion, rather than finish it.

Voting is one of the best ways to quantify opinions in a large group.

For each member of the group, there’s a certain likelihood that he disagrees with one of the existing members.

The likelihood of conflict between two individuals grows geometrically.

And while voting may be appropriate in some circumstances, or at least a last resort. if consensus fails, the openness of Wikipedia, again, contributes to the sentiment that voting “is evil.”

 

 

Conclusion

people naturally look for means by which difficulties can be clearly dissected and neatly dispatched. But, given its reliance upon an assumption of good faith and a preference for consensus in its decision making, one can conclude that the Wikipedia community is relatively tolerant of the ambiguities inherent to collaborating on a world encyclopedia and rather trusting of human judgment over the long run.

In another “WikiSpeak” entry consensus is defined as “one of the three states that can be reached at the end of a discussion after all parties have become thoroughly fed up with it; the alternatives are no consensus or for pity’s sake, he wishes he’d never gotten involved in this.”

 

 

I don't know in detail about wikipedia. So, Which part does discussion of wikipedia mean? Through this reading, I learn how to overcome confliction of discussion.

Even though I learn this solution of confliction, I don't know why conflict form.

I learned about discussion in wikipedia in class before. That was about article.

The discussion is about "does the article delete or keep?"

I want to know this discussion subject is all or another discussion subject exists.

I would like to know more in detail about this parts .

 

Opinion about sharing information

When we watch ted's video in last class,  We learn that we can wasily share to information because of technical improvement and much leisure.
our last team members agree this parts and we think sharing information has good aspect and bad aspect.
In political and social aspects, It is good to us because we can know many officially important information.
But, sharing personal information through SNS is not good.
because that is invasion of privacy.

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.