W6/Who do you think edits Wikipedia?/HARI KIM

Who do you think edits Wikipedia?


Summary)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that everyone creates together. By knowing who contributes a lot to Wikipedia, we can see which groups make up a large percentage of the contribution and whether either group is being left out. 

First of all, editors aged 17 to 40 make up 59 percent in terms of age. Among them, editors over 40 accounted for the highest proportion of 28%. Next, editors aged 30-39 were second with 19 percent. In terms of gender, male editors accounted for 91 percent of the total, according to Wikipedia editor survey 2011. In terms of nationality, most editors reside in the United States at a rate of 20 percent. Next, Germany accounted for a high rate of 12%. Most editors also edit in English Wikipedia at a rate of 76%, and read English Wikipedia at a rate of 49%.


New/Interesting things I learned)

I learned that Wikipedia has a high percentage of editors over 40 years of age, a high percentage of male editors, a high percentage of editors living in the United States, and that most editors use English Wikipedia. I wondered why the younger generation was making up a small percentage of Wikipedia. Are they using other communities that can consume and upload content simply for interest? Or do they not know the information about Wikipedia? It was also interesting that the proportion of men in Wikipedia was significantly higher, and I thought it would be necessary to be careful not to alienate female groups.


Discussion Point)

Most editors who use Wikipedia use English Wikipedia. The percentage of Korean Wikipedia users including Asia is low. Maybe it's because there's not enough information about Wikipedia? Or use other communities more interestingly? It may become familiar with sites where various contents are poured out when information is searched, such as Naver. Why is Korea Wikipedia's usage rate low? And what do you think the future prospects of Korean Wikipedia will be like? I'd like to hear 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