Week2 - Why Wikipedia?


 Week2 - Why Wikipedia?


1). Why do you think wikipedia is becoming more accepted? : Increased reliability

      In order for Wikipedia to gain trust, reliable content must be provided. In this regard, Wikipedia is said to have operated content formed by groups based on thorough standards and rules.

      In 2017, according to the blog of the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea, there are a growing number of cases of quoting Wikipedia content in scientific papers. In graduate school, professors are writing content with students in Ph.D. courses and increasing the importance of open access. With increasing quotes and production from experts, Wikipedia is increasing its credibility.

      According to this class, Wikipedia is increasingly influencing life and culture. With the public changing to produce content and share it to another public, Wikipedia, which has also increased reliability, is an inseparable platform.


2) What I found out : Enterprise Wikipedia Examples

       I found a Disney case while looking for a Korean company using Wikipedia. Disney chairman Bob Iger is said to have used Wikipedia while seeking a merger between Disney and Fox. Iger said he had to look up Wikipedia to see what Disney owned.

       It was an example of the reliability and characteristics of Wikipedia. Ahead of the important merger, it is impressive that the chairman has grasped what the public sees rather than the data focused on inside of the company. In particular, the case was new because companies seemed to think they had the most advantage over their information.


3) Here's what I'd like to talk about: Humorous TMI and informative text

       As we can see from this class and by doing our assignments, Wikipedia includes a variety of footnotes and descriptions in one thing, whether it's an item, a person, or a service. Some information is lightweight and gossipy, while others are really serious and perfectly true informative texts. The problem is that even fun texts are written like encyclopedia descriptions.

       As Wikipedia is used by people all over the world, gossip jokes can be interpreted as true and spread everywhere if they do not grasp the context and atmosphere of the text properly. If there is a problem with context and atmosphere identification, is it a characteristic problem of the Wikipedia platform, is it the fault of the person who wrote gossip as true, or is it the fault of the user who failed to grasp the context?






Comments

  1. MINKYO JEONG, 정민교March 14, 2021 at 1:00 AM

    Yerin, I read your posting very well. In particular, the Wikipedia usage case of Disney is really impressive. It is surprising that the company used Wikipedia for a merger. I think it was very appropriate to use Wikipedia to see how the public is looking at Disney. Because Wikipedia is a platform where all citizens participate to complete information about Disney, it is best suited to understand public opinion.
    I believe that the use of Wikipedia by such large companies will increase the reliability of Wikipedia.

    Also, I think the issues you mentioned are considerable. As it mentioned above, Wikipedia has such a large influence that large companies refer to Wikipedia for mergers. I think All three reasons you mentioned are responsible for the issue.

    First, this is a characteristic of the platform itself. It means that it is an indispensable problem because it is a website where information can be written freely regardless of status or environment, and there is no legal punishment for it.
    Secondly, If a person intentionally describes gossip or false information as real, it is clearly responsible. Because Wikipedia clearly has many devices for reliability, but it outperforms them to describe misinformation.

    Finally, there are some mistakes made by readers who failed to grasp whether it was gossip or truth. In order to use Wikipedia more effectively, there is a responsibility to learn about Wikipedia's long-standing problems. Readers must selectively accept information obtained from Wikipedia, keeping in mind that there is a reliability problem with Wikipedia and that it is an unavoidable problem.

    ReplyDelete

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