W3: Why is Wikipedia less popular in South Korea? / MINJEONG LEE




 

Why is Wikipedia less popular in South Korea?


Korean Wikipedia lacks Korean speakers. Also, the number of Korean documents is small and the contents are poor. I think the cause of this is Koreans' preference for snack knowledge. Most Koreans are passive in expressing because Korea mainly conducts cramming education. Therefore, Koreans are used to using information made by others, but they are reluctant to be the main agents of producing professional information. Also, like the phrase "Please summarize more than three lines of writing," which is frequently used by Korean netizens, people tend to enjoy short and light snack knowledge rather than expertise. Due to these characteristics, Naver's 'knowledge-iN' services and 'Namuwiki' are the most active in Korea than Wikipedia.

Naver's 'knowledge-iN' is a service that solves small questions in everyday life rather than logically sharing one's expertise. It is easily used by all generations regardless of gender and age because it is serviced by Naver, Korea's largest portal site and is closely related to daily life. However, there is a risk that users who do not have knowledge of the question will answer.

'Namuwiki' has a vast amount of documentation that can be called Korea's representative wiki. Most of the documents are focused on issues and fun rather than on delivering expertise, as it is mainly used by the young generation in Korea. Therefore, there is a risk of accepting inaccurate and misleading information due to fewer regulations on editing documents than Wikipedia.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

W7: Review of Good Faith Collaboration / Suyoung Han

  Review of Good Faith Collaboration 1) Summary – Wikipedia from an ethnographic perspective: focusing on collaboration within the community Wikipedia, which is called the world's largest encyclopedia, is an open community and is becoming more and more solid with the participation of various people, conflict, and resolution. In this respect, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. attempted to explain the culture that takes place within Wikipedia. The book describes how Wikipedia was created and what it values. In particular, he described Wikipedia in a book from an ethnographic point of view, and focused on cooperation within the community. 2) Interesting Point – Wikipedia is simple, but not I realized that Wikipedia is not just a site made up of community activities, but rather a collaborative activity that is carried out concretely for the goal. Before I read the book, Wikipedia was an encyclopedia site that only gave me information (even I didn't trust the information), and I thought ...
Read more

W10 : Can we think of some example of how Internet has changed our culture? / 박소민(SOMIN PARK)

 1. Summary  The Internet has changed our culture so much. First, through the Internet, we can meet people regardless of distance. People in each country communicated over the Internet and reduced the barriers to distance by creating relationships. Also, the Internet has let us stay away from books. When we want to find expertise, we can get it from Wikipedia or Google. Even information in books can be obtained through e-books, reducing access to libraries and paper books. 2. Interesting point Further to the above, our brains are gradually degenerating because we don't have to remember information. We are constantly interrupted by SNS notifications ringing on our phones when we do something, so our concentration and attention are being reduced. Furthermore, the ease of obtaining information online is causing our short-term memory to decline. 3. Discussion point I think the Internet has made it easy to sever a relationship with a person because we can meet another person simply...
Read more

w9: Its often said by teachers that “Wikipedia is a good place to start, but a bad place to finish” why? LiuXinlei

 Its often said by teachers that “Wikipedia is a good place to start, but a bad place to finish” why? In terms of the comprehensiveness of the content, we have to admit the advantages of Wikipedia. For example, Wikipedia is undoubtedly my first choice when I don't understand an event at all. It is convenient, fast and comprehensive, and I can spend the least time to understand the whole content of this fact as comprehensively and neutrally as possible. But in the process of in-depth learning, Wikipedia can only be used as an introductory content, because in learning we need to understand this fact as much as possible, and we need to understand the different views of scholars in different regions on the same event. There will be different theories. Some theories seem to be not neutral or even discriminatory or ethnographic at present (such as Marxism and Marxism in China), and it is not suitable for Wikipedia. Be shown. In short, Wikipedia has a very low threshold for users. It assu...
Read more