74 Matching Annotations
  1. Jan 2020
  2. Dec 2019
  3. Nov 2019
    1. Wikipedia neutralizes its content by distinguishing(p.152)two layers: a visible layer of consensus backed up by an invisible yet accessible layer of discussion and a heterogeneous interpretation on the History and edit pages

      La forma de la neutralización de contenido en Wikipedia.

    2. But how separate or “sovereign” is this space? Can a nonprofit enclave of neutrality exist when it is woven into the corporate fabric of connective media? And how does the ideology of neutrality and objectivity relate to the sharing logic and popularity rankings fostered by Facebook and Google? In short, how does Wikipedia hold up in a culture of connectivity where the default is on frictionless sharing and data mining?

      Es sorprendente que esta plataforma no se base en el usufructo de la privacidad de sus usuarios, como sí lo hacen la gran mayoría de grandes compañías.

    3. Arbitration Committee

      Alguna vez leí algo sobre este comité en los artículos que Núria me pasó.

    4. Sociologist Christian Pentzold (2011: 718) articulates this very precisely in his ethnographic study of Wikipedia users when he observes that contributors do “not only have to learn to use the software tools, but they also have to acquire the appropriate beliefs, values

      Aprender las normas comunitarias más que las herramientas.

    5. The NPoV rule is thus a guiding principle for building a functional apparatus, but that apparatus simultaneously shapes the meaning of neutrality as the “average opinion” or “shared interpretation.”

      ¿Qué significa neutralidad?

    6. Third-party apps, like the WikiScanner, make it possible to geo-locate anonymous edits by looking up the IP addresses in an IP-to-Geo database, a listing of IP addresses and the companies and institutions they belong to, and track a potential interest

      Pueden ubicarse las ediciones anónimas en Wikipedia.

    7. Third, articles have to be written from a “Neutral Point of View” (NPoV);

      Punto de vista neutral

    8. A second related rule is called “No Original Research.” Wikipedia simply does not accept new or unpublished research or original thought

      Sin investigaciones originales (al ser una fuente secundaria)

    9. First, the rule of verifiability means that readers have to be able to retrace Wikipedia content to reliable sources

      Contenido verificable

    10. over 16 percent of all edits in Wikipedia were made by bots, a number that is still growing (Geiger and Ribes2010: 119).

      En 2010 el 16% de las ediciones fueron hechas por bots. Sorprendente.

    11. bots obtain their own user page

      No sabía que los bosts tenían su propia página de usuario. Esto es bastante interesante porque la interacción no es sólo entre humanos, sino también humano máquina y tal vez máquina máquina.

    12. we find bots, administrators, bureaucrats, and stewards; developers and system administrators take the highest positions

      La jerarquía de Wikipedia

    13. Did Wikipedia need specialists(p.136)to contribute entries on one specific area, or were generalists who could write about different areas more valuable to the site? As it turned out, researchers proved that the site needs both types of input. Whereas specialists boost the site’s quality level, generalists are crucial to the connective fabric of the encyclopedia, as they tend to make more linksbetweendomains (Halatchliyski et al.2010)

      Se necesitan especialistas y generalistas en la enciclopedia.

    14. Various researchers noted this dramatic shift in workload, but instead of endorsing the wisdom-of-crowds cliché, Kittur and colleagues (2007) researched “the rise of the bourgeoisie”: a marked growth in the population of low-edit users.

      De la sabiduría de las masas al nacimiento de la burguesía

    15. Until 2006, Wikipedia was largely written and maintained by a core of dedicated editors—2 percent doing 73 percent of all edits.

      Un pequeño grupo base haciendo gran cantidad deel trabajo. Muy familiar en comunidades de práctica.

    16. For instance, how does Wikipedia’s consensual apparatus relate to the ideology of sharing, as professed by Facebook and others? How does the platform’s ideology of neutrality compare to the logic of popularity ingrained in Google’s ranking(p.134)mechanisms? And how can Wikipedia hold up its nonprofit status in a network of media conglomerates that are overwhelmingly driven by the profit motive?

      Algunas preguntas interesantes.

    17. To many, Wikipedia is one of the few examples of what Yochai Benkler (2006: 5) has called “nonmarket peer-production” in an otherwise overwhelmingly corporate digital environment

      Producción de pares de no-mercado, según Yoachi Benkler.

    18. online knowledge construction

      Knowledge construction is a key concept.

    19. hierarchical content management system

      Wikipedia tiene un sistema de gestión jerárquico de contenido.

    20. Wikipedia and the Neutrality Principle

      Capítulo de libro, por José van Dijck

    1. This suggests that conflictual games’moving-on does not rely on sustainedconversations (because participants disagree anyway) but relies on convincing the auth-ority.

      One with power and others trying to convince him/her and that's it.

    2. Because ofthis inability to change the rules, debates thus centre on two other areas: the interpretationof these rules and the discovery of evidence to satisfy (e.g., notability) criteria.

      Lo que se juega en la discusión.

    3. The consultation/enforcement mode suggests the pragmatic side of a game in which theactual manifestation as a site of independent yet transparent lobbying efforts, deviatesfrom its original setup as a site of discussion.

      How consultation/enforcement works

    4. Because closing admins are not bound to appeal to the majority, they havethe power to decide regardless of how many deleters or retainers incidentally

      Como si fuera mucho poder en unas pocas manos.

    5. In the discussion game, editors par-ticipate in AfD discussions in a way that is similar to other online asynchronous chats(although lonely“discussions”with only one comment are also common)

      How discussion works

    6. Thisalso shows a practical side to AfD discussions—the aim is not so much about convincingothers. It is about convincing the authority.

      Una de mis hipótesis es que es la comunidad quien debate y el bibliotecario (administrador) quien ejecuta. Esto podría rebatir esa hipótesis.

    7. A keydifference here with casual synchronous chats is that AfD is confrontational:

      Like "one side against others"

    8. The problem is that WP:AIRCRASH is an“advice on article content,”52not a guideline.

      Claro, aquí lo dicen:This page is an essay on article content. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how the content policies may be interpreted within their area of interest.

      This WikiProject advice page is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.

    9. two language games—consultation/enforcement and discussion

      Language games

    10. Also, some“dis-cussions”are not interactive—in the case when participants are all talking to the closingadmin rather than to each other

      Sounds like there are no discussion

    11. frame discussions

      What if the frame is more flexible? That can decide the future of the whole article.

    12. cascading arguments,

      Esto me parece muy fuerte.

    13. But manyfirst movers are more aggressive

      Aggresive == male?

    14. Based mostly on signals, thisfirst move thus sounds personal rather than analytical.This is in line with Wikipedia’s spirit—consensus—but is also problematic on behalf ofCassidy03’s deletion cause.

      "...sounds personal rather than analytical". That's very interesting because it's a subjective argument.

    15. A deleter can start with a short comment

      Short comment for a first move

    16. inFigure 1.

      En los validadores externos se puede ver lo que julio me sugirió: buscamos referentes en una sociedad que históricamente no ha documentado las obras y vidas de las mujeres, por lo tanto ¿cómo vamos a reflejarlo en la enciclopedia?

    17. Here,“institutionalized rules”refers to the citation of Wikipedia rules to establish legiti-macy.

      Explicación de cada uno de las 4 categorías.

    18. Free style operationalization

      Me gusta como presenta las premisas a analizar en el párrafo siguiente: 5a es una premisa, 5b es la siguiente y 5c la conclusión.

    19. 1a] PerWP:NEO; this

      El enlace está roto, aquí el enlace correcto.

    20. Thefirst phase revealed four broad categories of discursive resources that editors oftenuse: institutionalized rules (Wikipedia policies/guidelines), external validators, free styleoperationalization, and signals

      Estos podrían ser los motivos a los que se refiere Núria.

    21. Data from the AfD discussion pages was collected from June 1, 2013 to June 21, 2013 (thefirst phase)

      Recolecta dicsuciones de artículos de borrado en 20 días.

    22. My analysis will adopt part of this critical orientation by focusingon thepower relationsbetween editors in their choice of utterance during AfD discussions.

      Analiza las relaciones de poder. Creo que pronto llegaré a Foucault.

    23. My method of choice is discourse analysis

      Methodology: discourse analysis.

    24. For the purpose of differentiation, I shall call thepersons of the actdeletersandretainers

      Definición de las corrientes de bibliotecarios en Wikipedia

    25. Previousstudies of Wikipedia’s article deletion processes have shown that the lack of indicationof importance alone is the most important commonly used criterion for speedyCOMMUNICATION AND CRITICAL/CULTURAL STUDIES307

      La falta de importancia es el criterio de borrado rápido por excelencia.

    26. Finally, AfD discussions are conflictual.

      Las discusiones de los artículos para borrado son conflictivos

    27. Second,none of its participants can be certain as to what the rules of each languagegame are

      Reglas del juego del lenguaje

    28. First, thereisnoclearboundaryastowhoisaninsiderandwhoisanoutsiderand,ifthereisaboundary, there is high mobility between the inside and the outside (and vice versa)

      Adentro y afuera de Wikipedia

    29. I will conceptualize Wikipedia editors’online exchanges as amovein a“language game,”acentral concept of Wittgenstein’s view on language as social actions

      Concepto: Editor (bibliotecario) de Wikipedia. Movimiento en el concepto de lenguaje como acción social de Wittgenstein.

    30. As we shall see, much of the debate centres onthe interpretation of the“notability guideline”(WP:Notability),20which decideswhether topics should be included in this gigantic encyclopedia

      Claro, la interpretación e lo que significa "notoriedad" puede ser muy subjetiva.

    31. We have movedaway from mass reception to a supposed age of microinteractions and reinstitutionaliza-tion of civil space.

      Microinteracciones y espacio civil.

    32. Editors of newspapers and magazines constantly engage in the selection and silencing ofinformation in terms of choosing what to publish. This, in effect, sets a boundary betweenknowledge and“nonknowledge

      Establecimiento de jerarquías.

    33. Negotiating boundaries of knowledge: Discourseanalysis of Wikipedia's Articles for Deletion (AfD)discussion

      Sobre la toma de decisiones de borrado en Wikipedia.

    1. Usuario:Platonides/Encarta/Artículos

      Este usuario incluye los artículos de la Enciclopedia Encarta que se propone incluir en Wikipedia. En el listado de paso podría verse el balance de género que pueda tener la Encarta.

    1. En este enlace de Google Scholar se puede ver quien cita el artículo y llegar a más fuentes.

    2. Deletion discussions in Wikipedia: decision factors and outcomes

      Artículo del 2012 sobre discusiones de borrado en Wikipedia. El PDF no puede ser comentadio con Hypothesis :-(

    1. Mercedes del Carmen Guillén Vicente

      Este artículo se sometió dos veces a borrado. Al final quedó publicado.

    2. Wikipedia:Consultas de borrado/Mercedes del Carmen Guillén Vicente

      Ejemplo de una discusión sobre el borrado de un artículo de una mujer.

    1. Personas por sexo‎

      Categoría que contiene las categorías de géneros en Wikipedia en castellano.

    2. Mujeres‎ (10 cat, 73348 págs.)

      Aquí se pueden revisar cuántos artículos hay en la categoría de acuerdo al género.

    1. Este es argumento falaz denominado generalización apresurada. La relevancia enciclopédica de cada artículo debe discutirse per se, es decir, por sí mismo. Exceptuando analogías obvias cada hecho, objeto o personaje tiene su propia trascendencia y debe ser analizado por ella, no por la de otro o por la de la del género al que pertenece.

      Sobre los argumentos de borrado y el género.

  4. Oct 2019
    1. Do not use obviously feminine names, such as SuzyQ or Pam I Am. Do not use feminine titles like Miss, Ms, or Mrs. Do not incorporate hobbies, interests, family status, religious affiliation, etc. For example, Knit Nut, Fairly Feminist, and Lovemykids are not the best usernames if you want to avoid Wikipedia gender-based harassment.

      Esto podría sugerir que hay que "camuflar" el género en Wikipedia para que sea más fácil ser aceptado en la comunidad y que las ediciones se mantengan. Si bien no es explícito, podría sugerir que la ambigüedad es un factor para no ser eliminado o que hay que aparentar no ser mujer.

  5. Sep 2019
  6. Aug 2019
  7. May 2019