W11) After reading 'Commons:FAQ' /박채정, PARK CHAEJENOG


After reading 'Commons:FAQ'

 'Wikimedia commons' solves the general questions of site users. Overall, it is about writing articles on Wikipedia. For example, source, copyright, image/video insertion, etc. 

 I've been a Wikipedia editor, and I've made sure to reveal the source even if I write a sentence of an article. The material referenced at this time should be objective, and therefore blogs and general columns may be excluded. In addition, "I took it myself" photos are good because there can be problems related to copyright when inserting images. In fact, I once made a mistake because I couldn't look at this carefully. Copyright is a sensitive issue, so you'd better think about it again. This doesn't just apply to Wikipedia, but it's necessary enough to use other websites. I mean, you don't have to tell me why I have to read Wikipedia commons anymore.


2) Interesting point

 Many people check my edits on Wikipedia. And if I did something wrong, people who participate in Wikipedia correct it. For example, if there is anything that has not been identified, a related reference is attached. Or if I insert an image that may be copyrighted, they may inform or warn me that the image I uploaded is wrong. It is impressive that Wikipedia's articles are becoming one completely after many people's efforts and interests gather to revise and revise them.


3) Discussion Point

 What do you think of Wikipedia's appeal (an article made with the participation of many people, and people's hard work and attention in the process)? Do you think with me?


Comments

  1. Hyeonsu jeongMay 16, 2021 at 7:54 AM

    Hello chaejeong, I read your post well. Your summary is clear. I agree with your opinion about Wikipedia’s appeal. In addition, I think corrections and 주시 from other people are also Wikipedia’s appeal.

    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