Week2. Wikipedia, a leader in sharing platforms

Wikipedia, a leader in sharing platforms

 Week 2. why do you think wikipedia is becoming more accepted?

Shinhee Kim

Wikipedia operates differently from other communities that have existed until now while completely opening the authority. Many people constantly share their information, it becomes social value. Various information is gathered to create Wikipedia, and people can get more information faster than anywhere else. This advantage was enough to attract people.

Wikipedia is particularly popular with people as the concept of sharing economy grows and the boundaries of ownership are becoming unclear. Wikipedia was at the forefront of the sharing platform. The amount of information on the Internet was increasing countless times, and it would have been difficult to keep up with the vast amount of information in one way. However, Wikipedia dared to open everything up and make it easy for anyone to access. In Wikipedia, information can be shared and cooperated as equal individuals, regardless of their status or honor in offline.

 However, Wikipedia have some risk too. Unless an error is discovered by other experts and corrected or deleted, people accept wrong information. This risk probably have a greater impact than expected. It can lead people to have the wrong values, and it can take a long time to realize that the person has acquired the wrong information. Therefore, Wikipedia needs more accurate rules and checks in order to post only accurate information.

Comments

  1. 이영실March 13, 2021 at 7:18 AM

    Oh, that's right. I heard that the sharing economy is popular among people in 2019. Maybe that's why I think your words are credible. And there are still many people who believe in information on the Internet as it is. In order for Wikipedia to become more active and more advanced than it is now, More detailed rules and confirmation not only will be needed so that people can post only accurate information, I but also think people need to mature in their attitude of accepting information. 😊

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yerin LeeMarch 13, 2021 at 11:31 PM

    Shinhee, I want to tell you that I read your post well. As you said, Wikipedia's existence seems to be very powerful amid the growing Internet information.

    As you mentioned in the last paragraph, I was also worried about the reliability of Wikipedia information. But after taking the class, I found that Wikipedia has its own strict rules and standards. I can't say exactly, but I think they use algorithms and artificial intelligence. In addition, the percentage of quotes from many prominent academic magazines is getting bigger! Also, many professors take their students and participate in Wikipedia editing. I didn't know that, but I was surprised.

    In the case of 'namu wiki' in Korea, the information mixed with jokes is often updated, so I guess Google Wikipedia naturally thought of the same atmosphere. But it wasn't!

    ReplyDelete
  3. MINKYO JEONG, 정민교March 14, 2021 at 1:16 AM

    Shinhee, I read your posting very carefully. It is impressive that the blurring of information ownership boundaries helped Wikipedia become more acceptable. It seems attractive that everyone can contribute to information and that everyone can use that information as needed.
    I saw Wikipedia being used to merge companies in the posting written by someone else. In other words, even if you don't have a high position or standard that everyone deserves to recognize, you can contribute to such a big business. It is really attractive point.

    You raised the risk of errors in Wikipedia. I agree that the problem is serious. Because it is an encyclopedia, it is difficult to selectively accept information. Through this week's lectures, we learned that Wikipedia has a number of devices for reliability, but there are still problems with the possibility of errors. And this is an inevitable problem.

    I do not believe that this can be solved 100%, but in order to improve it, I believe that the platform itself must strengthen the filtering criteria for truth as well as improve the responsibility of users'. If the user's desire to write only reliable information is added to the strict standards, the possibility of improvement is endless in the future.

    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