W6 / Who do you think edits Wikipedia? The young, the old, male, female, Americans, koreans? / Jeongyoon Oh(오정윤)

 I think it's hard to tell who edits Wikipedia more by categorizing gender and race perfectly. Contributing to Wikipedia editing seems to be more influenced by individual personality and characteristics. For example, a person who wants his or her opinion to be used in an influential way, such as ‘an orator in the Internet world’. There are two reasons why I think a style like ‘an orator in the Internet world’ contributes a lot to Wikipedia editing.

 First, you can write influential articles to many people even if you don't have a job as a writer or a reporter. If you don't have a job like a writer or a reporter, you only write your own article on your personal blog. But in that case, it is unlikely that many people will come to your blog and read your posts. Unless you're a very influential blogger. But Wikipedia is a public site that the world's population looks for when it needs information. If you post on such an influential site, more people will read and get information than personal blogs.

 Second, they actively contribute to things that affect people. This is because they feel proud by sharing the information to people, even if they don't know all the specific information perfectly. Some people may be ashamed to let them know because they know too little information, but people like the ‘an orator in the Internet world’ are willing to share even a little information to help others. Wikipedia may be growing bigger with the good influence and activism of people like the ‘an orator in the Internet world’.

Comments

  1. Yang Ruixin 양서영April 6, 2021 at 12:04 AM

    I think everyone have edits Wikipedia.
    It ignores factors such as the editor's gender, age, social grade, occupation, and so on, so long as it is a registered user, it has the right to write, modify and edit entries. This allows the team of Wikipedia authors to expand infinitely in theory, The group of authors from over the world carries on the open interactive discussion and the research to the content of a certain subject field puts forward various different or even opposite opinions, which is advantageous to the research of the subject content.

    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