Why is Wikipedia less popular in South Korea ?

Wikipedia is not as popular as other countries in Korea. The reasons are as follows.

First, the degree of involvement in the source and reliability of the information is not high.
We often use the ‘Naver’ portal, Naver 지식인, and YouTube to get information in Korea.
There is a gathering of wisdom, knowledge, and experiences of not only the authority but also the general public. This means that what the authority says, the accuracy of the information and the fact are not essential. It is like saying that there is no high alertness about information. Therefore, "fake news" is a problem in Korean society. Production and censorship of fake news are also problems, but people are not critical and accept it unconditionally.

Second, We are more familiar with the acquisition of information.
For the use of Wikipedia, it is essential to generate information. However, we have worked hard since childhood to read existing information. This means that it is unfamiliar to collect, summarize, and provide necessary information for everyone. Therefore, since the generation of information within Wikipedia is low, utilization rates will naturally be low.

Third, we prefer information that has been processed several times.
The article posted on Wikipedia is the primary information processed by volunteers based on facts. But Korean people seem to prefer more processed information than this. People like information that is contented by others. By far, consumers read more self-development books than various humanities books in bookstores. l think we prefer information in which other people's experiences and wisdom are added.

Comments

  1. 이영실March 21, 2021 at 6:07 AM

    Well, I have a little question about your first opinion. First of all, I agree that Korea uses Naver and YouTube rather than Wikipedia to get information, and many people tend to accept the information as it is without judging it critically! However, I think the reason why people don't prefer Wikipedia is because it has a high degree of involvement in the source and reliability of information.
    We can check the professionalism of the information provider on Naver and YouTube. But wouldn't Wikipedia be considered unprofessional because many people can access and provide information? Maybe that's why they don't use it? Of course, this process of thinking will happen when they don't know much about Wikipedia. I hope that the culture of Wikipedia will be known to people in Korea. 😊

    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