W13) After reading "Categorization" /박채정, PARK CHAEJEONG


 After reading "Categorization"

 In Wikipedia, the criteria for "categorization" are the subject of the article. We can find information more conveniently through 'Category'. However, the caveat is that documents should be assigned to the appropriate categories. It also needs to be classified in a neutral light, just like when writing an article. For example, when we write an article, we need to support the categorization task as if we were identifying reliable sources. 


2. Interesting points

 I haven't fully understood Wikipedia's categorization work yet. But this isn't a big problem either. This is because other editors of Wikipedia can help and supplement the categorization process instead of me. Once again, Wikipedia's unique "collective intelligence" personality and advantages can be felt in all its processes (such as writing articles, editing articles, categorization, etc.). 

 It is also said that automatically moving and deleting classification documents is impossible. I've made a copyright-related mistake before, and I think it's similar to the way it was handled. So it was amazing to think that all the work processes on Wikipedia were connected.


3. Discussion points

What do you think about Wikipedia's categorization work? Have you ever thought that all Wikipedia work is interconnected like me? 


Comments

  1. Yang Ruixin 양서영May 29, 2021 at 7:28 AM

    Wikipedia shows its own success that the self-organized and open Wiki concept is not only completely feasible, but also makes fundamental changes in the way of knowledge production and sharing, which makes network culture showing a trend towards diversification, openness, civilians and non-authority.

    ReplyDelete
  2. SOMIN PARK (박소민)May 29, 2021 at 9:16 AM

    I felt the same way as you! Wikipedia's category function seems really good. When I edit an article all the time, other categories are grouped, and I look for other articles in that category.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

W7: GFC book notes By 'William S. Kowinski' , 'Cory Doctorow','Piotr Konieczny' and 'Paul Youngquist'/ 진신

Summary- William S. Kowinski: The true exception is the innovative success of a collaborative effort that has prime online reference work called Wikipedia. This book is not meant to be biography or reportage, but contemporary ethnography or study of a culture. What this book does well is describe how Wikipedia works and what issues have arisen.  It's short on drama and personality，and so it's probably destined to be a source document. Since that seems unlikely, this may remain the best opportunity for learning about this remarkable project. Summary- Cory Doctorow: Reagle makes an excellent case that this assumption of good faith is particularly powerful when it comes to dealing with those who lack good faith — it creates positive outcomes for arguments with everyone from neo-Nazis to political hacks who're whitewashing their boss's entries. Wikipedia's most fascinating and unprecedented aspect isn't the encyclopedia itself — rather, it's the collaborative cu...
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

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