Blogging through Wikipedia (2021)

  I could learn the power of collective intelligence by editing Wikipedia. I already knew the word collective intelligence, but I didn't have a chance to make it happen consistently. Because traditional student assignments were the process of finding problems and solving alone or as a team. In comparison, this task is the process of solving problems by gathering and discussing opinions with everyone around the world, not just a few team members. We say this is a global era, but chances to communicate with so many and various people are not very common. The fact that many things, such as nationality, gender, and age, work with other strangers made this interesting. This class is over, but I will provide helpful information to others.

 1. What is 'Do You Know'? DYK's function is to recommend new content to users. Wikipedia offers a variety of information by recommending and sharing new information that can be missed because it is not on the main page. It also provides insights to users.   Hereby, they increase the power to recreate other information and disseminates improved information.   2. Thinking about DYK I think this feature is the result of thinking about how to give users more informative information. If you use this function well, you can evenly acquire useful information that might have been necessary for you. It shows content that you might be interested in while ensuring a certain level of quality. That's why you don't have to be stressed out for be perfect in Wikipedia. Also, I will believe in this feature and try to participate with a light heart, when I edit Wikipedia in the future.

  When you search for information on Wikipedia, you can see that the content is categorized. This article explains that part. If vast amounts of information are grouped and organized into related contents through category functions, it will be easy to find the information I need among them.   For example, when you search the name of a person to know the activity history of a person, it takes a long time to find the information you need in a place mixed with unwanted information such as the person's academic background or agency. However, in Wikipedia, where a lot of that information is categorized, you can find the information you need as soon as you search. Categories reduce information search time, making it more efficient.

  I think human rights, equality and happiness are the most important indicators of the quality of our society. This is because I think these indicators are the most basic but difficult items to secure high scores. What should we do to score high on these indicators?   First, let me talk about 'human rights'. Human rights mean the basic rights that a person deserves. Human basic rights include the right to life, liberty, equality, and the right to live. In other words, everyone should be guaranteed the right to be respected the value of life, the right to act freely without interference from anyone else, the right to be treated the same regardless of their political views or status, and their right to enjoy food, clothing, and shelter at least. A steady issue in human rights is the 'human rights of criminals'. It is an argument about whether to protect the human rights of criminals who violate the human rights of others. Unfortunately, criminals are also human being

 I think quality is a subjective indicator. The quality score will vary depending on who evaluates it. That is why we need standards for quality assessment. For example, let's evaluate the quality of clothes. Indicators that evaluate the quality of clothes include material, weight, and design. And we need to set a standard for each indicator. Does the material not damage the skin because it's rough? Is there any inconvenience in everyday life because it's too heavy? Isn't the design too fancy? Here, those who like fancy designs will be given low design scores. Quality is a subjective indicator because people have different evaluations like this way. The average value of scores of countless people who scored differently is quality, and the higher the number of appraisers, the more reliable the indicator.

 The digital divide means that as digital becomes more common, economic and social differences arise for those who have easy access to information and those who do not. The four major information vulnerable groups designated by the government include low-income families, the disabled, farmers and fishermen, and the elderly. Why are they hard to access digital information? Digital information can be obtained through digital devices, not paper newspapers, which are also expensive items for middle-income earners to purchase. In other words, it is difficult for low-income people to purchase digital devices themselves. The elderly are not good at using digital devices because they are not a generation that used to use PCs or mobile devices commonly. In addition, the ownership rate of digital devices among the elderly is lower than that of the general public. Farmers and fishermen with a high composition rate of older people have a similar reason for the digital gap.   Then, what about t

  While editing Wikipedia, I was once again surprised by the power of collective intelligence. We could see the power of collective intelligence when we saw people unite with one belief that they would provide better information beyond the constraints of time and space, share each other's opinions, contribute, participate, and devote their abilities. In fact, these events are also seen in Korean society as a negative aspect. On SNS, people are divided into sides, divided into their own communities, spreading fake news and criticizing others. I think our society, which uses only group power in a bad way, needs a spirit of dedication to each other like Wikipedia's users. I thought it was necessary to have a spirit of discussing it, not ignoring it because I didn't know it, not teaching it, helping it, or cursing it because it was different. Like this, we can learn about collective intelligence through Wikipedia. Unlike existing tasks, it seems to have been different in that i

 Summary This is a function that recommends new content. It applies a set of criteria to users of Wikipedia to deliver new information. Wikipedia's diversity of information can be emphasized by sharing information that is not found on the main page. Interesting point I think these features are the reason why Wikipedia is more interesting to users. It is a function that encourages users to participate in continuing to expand and improve Wikipedia. Looking at the new information, users will be amazed at the diversity and will be more attracted to Wikipedia.

Summary  This is a description of the use of Wikipedia's classification function. Only when categories are clearly distinguished can I find the information I want faster and more accurately, and the category function allows me to see the information in the field I want to find at once and helps me search. Interesting point Setting up categories enables more efficient management of information. Category classification allows people to identify the areas that they are most interested in and mainly what categories of information they want. In other words, it is convenient for users to use, but easy for providers to manage. This is because data can be collected and used as big data.

  I think the quality of our lives is the level of consciousness. This is because the quality of life varies depending on what level of food, clothing, and shelter people enjoy. I think that if people enjoy food, clothing, and shelter to the satisfaction level, satisfaction naturally increases and other indicators rise accordingly. For example, there will be human rights. People don't live off food, clothing and shelter. Human rights must be guaranteed to be said to live as rain. As an extreme example, food, clothing, and shelter are guaranteed, but I think life without human rights is no different from livestock. I think democracy is necessary, just like these human rights. This is because I think I can live an independent life only when I have the opportunity to speak my mind.

I think quality can be subjective or objective. The results will vary depending on what criteria the quality is evaluated on. Products measured with clear criteria will be objectively scored for quality. But it's the people who set the bar that evaluate it. For example, if a snack is made based on strict standards, it still maintains objective quality, but in an individual's view, it can taste worse or less than it used to be. In this case, it can be seen as a subjective assessment. Like this, I think quality depends on what criteria you evaluate.

  The development of the Internet has changed everything. Our lives are not out of it either. Our lives now are irreparable to the Internet. If you want to look at a map on the street, you can use the Internet, find out the necessary information on the spot, and let you know the relevant information in addition to the necessary information. This development of the Internet has broken down the dam of information. As anyone has access to information, information that was monopolized only by existing intellectuals has been released to anyone. Currently, we can communicate with anyone in the world through the Internet and exchange information. However, as the development of the Internet accelerates, people's level of consciousness does not keep up with technological advances, and the Internet does not work in a good sense. Also, the elderly and the poorest who do not have easy access to the Internet still have difficulty accessing information. The development of the Internet has brough

  Wikipedia obviously left a lot to users to collect huge amounts of information, but distortions of information inevitably emerged because anyone could participate. In particular, there have been many cases of political abuse. Wikipedia in Korea often fills in wrong information according to its political orientation. Failure to improve these areas will reduce the reliability of Wikipedia over time, forcing users to naturally decline. In other words, Wikipedia is reliable in some areas but unreliable in some areas.

The difficult: The difficulty was whether my edits were correct. So far, I've only searched and used information, but if the information I'm correcting is wrong, isn't it because of me? Am I authorized to correct this? The enjoyable: As I revise this information, other people will gain knowledge from this revised information. It made me think that I gave them knowledge. I think I enjoyed translating and collecting information because of this thought.

  This book analyzes Wikipedia's culture of cooperation. Wikipedia's participants are all open minded and collaborative. This open and receptive attitude is why Wikipedia has quality information. Sharing and complementing information while cooperating with each other can produce better results. In other words, Wikipedia is the result of a good faith that comes from the heart of making better information. Nowadays, with the development of the Internet, anyone can easily access information, but before that, only a few intellectuals shared and monopolized information because there was not enough space for easy communication between people. However, with the advent of Wikipedia, there is a place where people can easily, quickly and simply share their knowledge, so anyone can now easily and quickly get information. In other words, Wikipedia is the place that broke the border of information.

  Individual commitment is important in collective intelligence. This is because individuals must gather to become a group. Because one individual's devotion is to gather and become a collective intelligence, collective intelligence can exert its power. Just because individual knowledge is excellent doesn't mean it's collective intelligence. Knowledge gathered through people's cooperation has more power than individual knowledge, and knowledge gathered, refined and supplemented by many people can have enormous synergy and become knowledge.

I think censorship is essential part I think censorship is a very important role. Without censorship, any site like Wikipedia can participate, so it will be a scribble that only writes one's own thoughts without minimal censorship. If censorship does not exist, people will not be able to believe any information and information may be misused for a particular purpose.  I think censorship is a device that should not benefit anyone. You have to censor if you're really telling the truth. In this era of SNS development, celebrities are easily damaged by malicious information that comes up without censorship, and there are still no countermeasures against it. In this age of growing freedom of anonymity, I think censorship is a must-have function for all of us.

  Naver and Google usually use it for different purposes. Naver often finds content rather than looking for specific information, and Naver itself contains a single information portal, or many contents. Popular information is mainly searched on blogs and in Korea. This is because Naver is Korea's representative portal site. As Korea's representative portal site, many contents and information are gathered, but people don't actually get qualitative information from Naver.  This is because more qualitative data can be obtained through Google and through accumulated data. Google tells me the information I want through data from all over the world, so I think it is much better in quality than Naver's information.  Therefore, Naver and Google have their own features that cannot be compared to each other, and I think it is desirable to use the appropriate search engine depending on the situation.

 Internet addiction is a condition in which computer and Internet use is uncontrolled, excessive obsession or impulsive behavior, which in turn causes problems such as depression, social isolation, impulse control, and drug abuse. 6% of the world's population is Internet-addicted, and the average Internet addiction rate of Koreans is 8.5%, higher than about 5% in advanced countries. However, the fact that 6 percent of the world's population is Internet-addicted also suggests that the other 94 percent are not Internet-addicted. In other words, almost all of the world's population is not Internet-addicted.   Then can we say that we are really addicted to the Internet? What does it mean to be "really" addicted to the Internet?   Excluding the dictionary meaning of Internet addiction, I think it means breaking down the priorities set in daily life and making Internet use the number one priority in life. Just a lot of Internet use is not called Internet addiction.

I think Wikipedia is reliable. Wikipedia is the content that always appears at the top of Google's search result. On the contrary, some people might say Wikipedia is not to be trusted. Of course, there have been times when there has been bad controversy, and there is also the issue of bias. Since it is an open encyclopedia where anyone can edit information, someone uploads fake information maliciously. However, Wikipedia already has an alternative system in place for the problem, and is constantly identifying the problem and discussing solutions.   If a groundless document is created or modified, it will be deleted or restored in less than a second. Such a device is in place in Wikipedia editing tools. As part of my biggest concern, the problem of Wikipedia being broken by editors who maliciously create fake documents or secretly undermine documents is to be difficult to actually occur. Although fake information can be spread for a while, it is to be difficult to maintain for a

1. Difficulty with using Wikipedia I think reliability is the most important part of information. So I was most concerned that I, not an expert, would be lowering the reliability of the information. Studies have shown that Asian and female distributions are noticeably small among active editors. That's why I can't stop editing even if I'm concerned. I just go through several documents to share more accurate information. From a minority editor's point of view, I will try to convey a variety of information from all over the world without bias.   2. Enjoyment with using Wikipedia I'm glad I can feel the effects of collective intelligence when I find and edit errors among the information already stored on Wikipedia. I also enjoy when my first shared or edited document is modified by another editor. Of course, I would be happy if the document I participated in was left unedited for a long time. But if there's an error, of course it's better for someone to

  What would be good to write on Wikipedia starts with a flashing idea. We can produce any article on Wikipedia. Just the desire to make a good article on Wikipedia can be difficult to write something that can be shared with various people. Therefore, we should be able to utilize various media articles, books, and papers, and finally look at 'me' objectively from the ideas of our friends or from the perspective of our friends. It's harder than you think to write things that are beneficial and refined and easy to see for millions of people using Wikipedia. However, when we finally finished uploading the article, we will be able to feel great worthwhile.

Wikipedia aims to create an encyclopedia that can contain all of people's knowledge fields and maintain its meaning. The English version of Wikipedia is said to produce and expand a huge amount of new articles every day. DYK aims to achieve the following objectives. Wikipedia continues to expand and always has to show new and improved content. Wikipedia has a wide range of information and must provide insight into the material. It is imperative that the facts be presented. It should also encourage readers to edit or begin writing. When various people gather to write a single article, various writings can be added or decreased within a single topic. Therefore, Wikipedia must have strict regulations to move toward existing goals without blurring the essence, and it must be able to provide an environment in which it can write freely. It was designed to capture all of the above. I think it's DYK.

  This article explains the function of Wikipedia's page grouping. Categories help readers find topics by looking at pages organized by titles. It also connects the relationship between each article and helps to understand the relationship between each article. Where the category is located (categories are usually at the bottom of the page in the article). This article explains in detail how subclassification takes place.

  Wikipedia is considered the best web service that many people can access with a single topic and different perspectives. In modern society, countless pieces of information are pouring out, and we are always at a crossroads where we have to find the truth and judge what is right or wrong. In the e nd, the truth can be found through refined information in the encyclopedia. The democratization of information is not information that is written by experts in power over a particular discourse and planted in countless people. Wikipedia is the information we produce and consume ourselves. Wikipedia is the place where I find the truth, prove the truth, and share certain ideas that I knew. The reason for Wikipedia's existence has always been clear, and the goals it pursues are the same, so I think Wikipedia is a necessary service for our lives in the future. Did you enjoy writing Wikipedia? Of course, you can answer yes to the question. This semester was my last college term. The fact that

  T he Free Culture Movement is a social movement that supports the freedom to distribute and modify any content or media to creators without any reward or consent. This movement opposes overly restrictive copyright laws. Because I think excessive copyright laws hinder people's creativity. Therefore, some call it a culture that allows it. The first thing that came to mind when I first heard about the free culture movement was the copyleft. Just as the steps of vegetarianism are distinguished, there are also stages of this movement, which are distinguished by the strictness of compensation and distribution, and there are various arguments. It's a little difficult to give a clear answer to what's right and wrong, but I personally want to give a little more power to copyright law. I think protection for creators rather promotes creativity. I think creative things will be born that can change the world by what was not in the world, or what existed but needed to be supplemented.

  In 2006, Wikipedia and the real-life word Wikiality were announced. Colbert, who announced the content, said Wikipedia proves and creates the truth. Among what he said, "We can create a reality that we all agree on," was the most impressive. It is considered a reality if the 'fact' that someone has claimed is agreed by many. For example, he said that elephants tripled on elephant pages, which led to a false change in the actual Wikipedia page. Since then, Wikipedia has strictly defined writing anonymously. Wikipedia is called the democratization of knowledge. If it's something that many people can nod their heads, if it's something that's agreed upon by many people, it can be written on Wikipedia. And anyone who writes can access and check the content. In the democratization of knowledge, we must be careful not to share the wrong information among many people and focus on certain discourse as a collective concentration phenomenon. That is why more accura

Now the way contents are produced has changed. It is also not surprising that people evaluate this collaboration. We have pursued the most common encyclopedia ever. I think Wikipedia is the reality of what I dreamed of. These advances in technology are always at the center of controversy. Those who fail to keep up with the development of technology will go on criticizing it to the end. Until the existence of smartphones, the range of contents we knew was limited. Therefore, when Wikipedia first appeared in the world, it would have grown up with people's doubts and doubts. In 2021, we look at smartphones and join various communities to create various me. Facing hundreds of events and encountering various opinions from the world. Whenever that happens, what we seek is the most neutral truth, universal opinion. Isn't Wikipedia the most convenient and easy for us to identify them? Anyone can write, anyone can edit. I think Wikipedia's values and values are, after all, the most

    1. Summary To pick two of Wikipedia's most influential people, two co-founders are chosen. Among them, "Sanger" worked on developing and managing Wikipedia rules. He held an important position at Wikipedia, but resigned. He alienated some Wikipedia people and focused on creating a professional-friendly encyclopedia. 2. Interesting Point Sanger couldn't afford to lose healthy contributors to Wikipedia with a few unnecessary haters. It then sanctioned abnormal users and interfered with their actions. It was different from what other co-founders thought. Rather, "Wales" did not interfere relatively, judged that Wikipedia could solve the problem on its own, and did not engage in any major problems. 3. Discussion Point It's amazing that Wikipedia believed it could solve small problems on its own. He pushed this belief to the end, and in conclusion he was right. I would have voted for Sanger's words if I were him.

   1. Summary There are clear norms in Wikipedia. You can find it on the Policies and Guidelines page. The page contains the following contents. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and must respect other contributors. It should not infringe on copyright, but should be free from prejudice. Finally, information based solely on reliable sources can be written. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a space for personal opinions, experiences, or arguments, all documents must provide verifiable references. Wikipedia also has a neutral view. It is not just a place to stand up for a single point of view, but a place to present a variety of meaningful points of view. 2. Interesting Point Wikipedia does not have one perspective. Various opinions and arguments on a single event or topic can all be contextualized. Of course, each must present a source of authority and trust. I think Wikipedia is the most neutral space in the space of one-sided websites. 3. Discussion Point Can Wikipedia be the most neu

  1. Summary   Nupidia is a website created by Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales. It existed for three years from 2000 and, unlike Wikipedia, was a site written by experts. CNET described the site as one of the greatest non-existent sites in history. Unlike Wikipedia, Nupidia had to undergo verification by experts in each field when it was posted. This ensures the accuracy of the content, but it becomes impossible to share information quickly. This is considered to have hindered Nupidia's growth. 2. Interesting Point I first learned about the existence of Nupidia. It was interesting to be able to share information from various fields on one page. In the early 2000s, it seems to be significant that there is a place to share and share various information in an era where information is less fast than it is now. 3. Discussion Point What is currently replacing Nupidia's role?

  This book <Good Faith Collaboration> is written by Joseph M. Reagle Jr., which deals with Wikipedia and Wikipedia community topics. It has been described as an ethnographic study of Wikipedia's culture, including history, real-world situations and theoretical pioneers, consensus and cooperative practices.   This book consists of 8 chapters. Among them, chapters 3 and 4 begin with the ethnographic part of this book. They discuss why Wikipedia accomplished its intended purpose. Chapter 4 focuses on licensing issues, Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 focus on decision-making processes within Wikipedia. Chapter 7 analyzes popular and critical discussions about Wikipedia, including concerns about the widespread amateurism of the project.   Many scholars praised the contents of this book. To introduce one of them, Professor Poitr Konieczny, who reviewed the book for Social Forces in 2014, said it has earned itself a place of a classic in the study of Wikipedia, although it does no

 Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone of all genders, ages, and nationalities. This is only low in credibility in Korea, and it has always become a reliable content that appears on top of Google search results. So, does Wikipedia's collective intelligence fairly much of the world's knowledge? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone of all genders, ages, and nationalities. This is only low in credibility in Korea, and it has always become a reliable content that appears on top of Google search results. So, does Wikipedia's collective intelligence fairly contain much of the world's knowledge?   In fact, gender bias has been an issue that has been raised since 2010. According to several surveys and studies, the biggest reason of the problem is that most of Wikipedia's editing participants are men. Among Wikipedia editors, women range from 10% to 20%. There is one example that illustrates this well. There was Strickland, a scie