Blogging through Wikipedia (2021)

1. What did I learn while editing Wikipedia? I learned a lot from editing Wikipedia articles so far. Especially, I broke the prejudice against Wikipedia. When I do my  assignment  in college, I don't usually refer to Wikipedia articles. Because there is a prejudice that Wikipedia information cannot be trusted in Korea. I also thought I couldn't trust the information about a site that anyone could edit. However, Wikipedia is working hard to preserve neutrality and objectivity. Wikipedia avoids unidentified or biased content. I found out that this site wanted to provide the most accurate information to users. I think I will refer to Wikipedia frequently if there is any information I need when I do my future assignments. Also, I learned anew that Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, but also a kind of public forum. I had no idea that Wikipedia had a place for users to communicate. I think it is a great advantage that there is a space for users to communicate and discuss an arti...

1. Summary Wikipedia's "Did You Know" section allows users to view the least known of the latest articles. In other words, DYK is a system that allows users to view new or expanded documents. DYK's goals are as follows. DYK presents new and improved content to Wikipedia users, provides insight into a variety of materials, and allows users to view a variety of articles that may not be exposed to the main page. Four conditions must be met to be selected as Wikipedia's DYK item. First, the article must be up to date within seven days. Secondly, the article must be over 1500 characters long. Thirdly, the article should clearly include the fact that it is cited from a reliable source. Finally, the article must have a neutral view and comply with the core policy of copyright. 2. Interesting Point I didn't know exactly what criteria DYK was recommended, but I was surprised that there were four conditions needed. I thought DYK was running completely randomly. If the a...

Summary Wikipedia categorization is a list that divides topics, which helps users find information easily. Therefore, the category must be clearly named. Also, all Wikipedia articles must be in at least one category. Because categories are tree structures, subcategories can be included in the parent category, but vice versa. Finally, the category must be neutral. Interesting point I've never thought about categories in detail while using Wikipedia. However, it was good to know the fundamental reasons for the existence of categories and the attributes of categories. Above all, it was interesting to note that there should be clear grounds for categories and that they should be neutral. Wikipedia is a much more structured site than I thought. Discussion point Does Wikipedia's category help you edit or search Wikipedia's articles? If so, do you think Wikipedia's category is operating neutral enough?

Summary Quality is subjective and changes rapidly over time. So I think 'quality' for our society is also required differently by the times. I have thought about the social atmosphere that members of society feel is essential to their lives. For former members of society, high economic quality would have been paramount. In the case of Korea, it was most urgent for people to make money to survive in a ruined country after the Korean War. However, Korea has grown rapidly since the war. So current members of society want a high quality of rights. Currently, most Koreans are not economically deficient. Instead, it seems that the most important thing is to be guaranteed one's rights. Discussion Point It won't be easy, but I wonder what would happen if everyone in the world had equal rights. If a world without discrimination came, what quality would society members want?

I think the image quality is subjective. Whatever it is, I think the assessment of quality is bound to be subjective. Everyone lives with different experiences. Therefore, there are bound to be differences in values and tastes. Therefore, I think image quality is subjective. Some people might think it's great, some might say it's bad, even if you look at the same picture. In my case, when I take pictures with my friends, I keep the pictures I store in my phone photo album at a high quality. This is because I hope the memory of that time will be vivid when I take it out later. However, when I upload it to SNS, I deliberately raise it to low quality. I think it makes the atmosphere of the picture look more stylish. In this case, I am satisfied with the high quality of my cell phone photo album, and the low quality of the picture I upload on SNS. I think it will be more subjective overall, because the quality desired depends on the situation.

  After the Internet developed, many people could find the information they wanted easily and quickly. I remember looking at a paper dictionary when I was young to find words I didn't know. Nowadays, however, when people have words or information they don't know, they can get information just by taking out their cell phones and searching them. In addition, it became easy to communicate with people with diverse opinions. In the past, people had to meet face-to-face to talk, but with the development of the Internet and the creation of SNS, people from other regions and even other countries could easily talk. Listening to various people's stories has a huge impact on one's formation of values. Therefore, I think the Internet has changed culture a lot.

I think Wikipedia in general is reliable. In order to edit articles on Wikipedia, Wikipedia rules must be followed, and incorrect edits are deleted immediately. Wikipedia users also edit or delete incorrect information as soon as it comes up. That's why I think Wikipedia is more reliable than indiscriminate information on the Internet. But still, Wikipedia is written by ordinary individuals.  Therefore, if the source of the information is even a little unclear, it should not be trusted unconditionally. When searching for information on Wikipedia, checking the source will help you get good information.

1.   What do you find difficult? When I first edited a Wikipedia article, it was quite difficult to choose which one to edit. And I kept thinking that I didn't have enough knowledge to edit the article. It could not be edited hastily unless there was a reliable source. Also, the overall design of Wikipedia sites is inconvenient. 2.   What do you find enjoyable? It was very interesting to think that other people gained knowledge by looking at the items I modified or added. Also, just editing the article makes me feel like I've become a smart person. 3.   Discussion If you could modify the UI of Wikipedia, which one would you modify first?

Summary The book consists of eight chapters. The book describes Wikipedia's systematic functions, community, collaboration culture, cultural acceptance, leadership and interpretation of open information websites. Wikipedia was created for what purpose and focuses on explaining what Wikipedia's core values are. Interesting things I found it interesting that Wikipedia worked without big regulations or operating policies. It is noteworthy that the information sharing method is not the only collective intelligence, but also the operating system operates as a collective intelligence. I realized that individual self-purification capabilities can exert great power. Discussion point After reading this book, I would like to ask if you have any new knowledge about Wikipedia or information that broke the prejudice against Wikipedia

Summary I think individual contributions to collective intelligence are very important. Small drops of water can create a big river. One's contribution is also very important, as it is all personal knowledge that forms collective intelligence. Different people have different experiences in their lives, so everyone's contribution is precious. Interesting point As I took this class, I was surprised that more people than I expected were trying to share their knowledge. It's of course fun to inform others of your knowledge. However, writing Wikipedia articles takes a lot of time and effort. Nevertheless, many people edit Wikipedia articles and have affection. I think Wikipedia could operate properly because such people exist, and many people around the world could get various information. Discussion point Besides Wikipedia, I wonder if you've ever experienced the power of collective intelligence. If so, I would like to ask if individual contributions have been of great help...

  I think Wikipedia needs censorship. Wikipedia is easy for anyone to write and edit articles. That's a great advantage of Wikipedia, but it's also a weakness. Without censorship or sanctions on Wikipedia, individuals' political orientations or biases are highly likely to be involved. I think the risk is too high to just want to be solved by collective intelligence. Wikipedia's main purpose is to provide information, and I think minimal censorship is necessary to keep that purpose. Minimum censorship to prevent misinformation or malicious editing will be welcomed by all Wikipedia users. Therefore, Wikipedia should not reject censorship.

  In the case of Naver, if you enter the information you want in the search box, you can see information from various sites such as Naver dictionary, Naver blog, and Naver cafe at a glance. But since Naver is not an academic site, you can't always get the information you want. Naver is accessible and used by Koreans. But I don't think it's good to use for academic purposes. In Google's case, the amount of information is very large. If you enter the keywords properly, you are very likely to get the information you want. If you can't find it on Google, it's safe to say that it doesn't exist in the world. However, it is not easy to find only the information I want because there is so much information. Also, Google is a foreign site, so there are many times when you use English to get the information you want. But since I am Korean, it is a bit tricky to search in English every time.

I think there are two main reasons. First of all, Wikipedia's image in Korea is not good. In Korea, there is a site called 나무위키, which is very similar to Wikipedia. The same goes for Wikipedia, but Koreans fight very aggressively on the site. There is also a lot of incorrect information on this site. So 나무위키 has a bad image in Korea. Koreans seem to think Wikipedia and 나무위키 are the same (of course, the two sites operate the same way) and avoid using them. The second reason is that Koreans are too familiar with portal sites like Naver. Koreans often search portal sites from a very young age to solve their questions. Of course, Koreans are more familiar with portal sites than Wikipedia. That's why Koreans don't seem to have a new attempt at Wikipedia.

1) Summary Wikipedia is easily accessible to anyone, anytime, anywhere. So people can quickly search Wikipedia when they have the information they want.And Wikipedia is run by people's voluntary participation. If there's any information I want to give someone else, I can write a Wikipedia article. That way, Wikipedia users can share knowledge with people all over the world. Although there may be misinformation, many people try to correct it with the right information. 2) Interesting point Although Wikipedia is a good site, many point out that it is not reliable because it is run by ordinary people. So it was interesting that Wikipedia's credibility was improving. Maybe so far Wikipedia's image has been bad and people haven't quoted it in public. If more people use Wikipedia, they will get more quality information. Naturally, I think credibility will be better than now. 3) Discussion angle When submitting assignments in universities, particularly for team assignments...