W11: About wiki's FAQs|LiuXinlei

 Even if I have been using Wikipedia for a long time, I feel that Wikipedia has a very complicated procedure for uploading media. Especially in terms of copyright requirements. I have also searched for pictures that do not require copyright restrictions on other picture sites to use in some of my homework, but when I tried to upload pictures I took on Wikipedia, I found that many terms need to be followed. See Going up is not as simple as downloading and using these pictures.

Even if the work is readily available on the Internet, as long as it was created by someone, and the copyright holder has not announced the waiver of the copyright, or the copyright has not expired, the work is still protected by copyright. Copying, dissemination, publication, etc. must be permitted by the copyright holder. Unauthorized copying, dissemination, publication or reprinting of other people's works is an illegal act infringing copyright, and Wikipedia will not condone illegal acts. Although the content of Wikipedia is allowed to be freely copied, modified, and used for profit, it is not anti-copyright, and it still respects the existing copyright system.

I find it very interesting that even if it is common sense, it has copyright when it is recorded in words. Wikipedia’s explanation for this is that words and knowledge are different. The copyright law protects the expression of thought (such as a text narrative introducing the theory of relativity), not the thought itself (such as the theory of relativity itself) and its Procedures, processes, systems, operating methods, concepts, principles, discoveries or other knowledge connotations. As long as someone writes down this knowledge in his own words, then he owns the copyright to this article, which cannot be violated. I believe this must be a part that the public often ignores when using Wikipedia. Everyone makes such mistakes. This is instead a part that needs to be warned: we may infringe the copyrights of others unconsciously in our daily lives.

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