W3/How do we participate in web 2.0? How do we create the modearn-day culture?/HARI KIM

 How do we participate in web 2.0? How do we create the modearn-day culture?

 

Summary)

Web 2.0 is an Internet environment centered on user participation that allows anyone to easily produce and share data without anyone owning or monopolizing it. In other words, it is an Internet environment represented by openness, participation, and sharing. It functions as a "platform" that anyone can easily share data that drives collective intelligence, such as blogs, Facebook, and Wikipedia.

Therefore, Web 2.0 serves as the main function of changing our culture. Because anyone can participate and share, many people around the world share information and are provided at the same time. So, it can be said that it is forming a new culture. It is easy to encounter major issues from around the world, and trends are formed by Web 2.0. For example, K-pop fever occurs through YouTube, and it is possible to easily communicate with people around the world through Instagram, forming a global culture.

How do I participate in Web 2.0? I usually share news about travel and good restaurants through Instagram. And I share my part-time job information and daily contents in v-log format through YouTube. I participate in Web 2.0 and enjoy sharing and participation.


New/Interesting things I learned)

It was very interesting that Web 2.0 permeated throughout our lives and played a major role in changing our culture. I'm also participating in Web 2.0 and I realize that I'm getting a lot of new information and unknowingly permeating a new culture.


Discussion Point)

Web 2.0 can be participated by anyone, so there is a possibility that it will fall into unreliable content due to a lack of information expertise. The possibility of subjective intervention should be considered in order for the general public to create information. For example, a lot of fake information and news are circulating through Facebook and YouTube. What efforts would be needed to exclude the possibility of subjective intervention? If subjective intervention has been ruled out, can we trust information from the general public? I'm curious about your opinion.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

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