Blogging through Wikipedia (2021)

What did I learn while editing Wikipedia?   Since I entered the Department of Advertising and Public Relations, I have had a lot of team projects with various people. And through these activities, I could feel and learn the power of 'collective intelligence' . However, it was very interesting that 'collective intelligence' could be found in the Internet environment, and I thought I should take this lecture to get another lesson.   In fact, Wikipedia was a strange site for me. I've only heard the name, but I've never looked for it. This is because I used Google or Naver a lot when searching for data or information while working on a team project. However, I learned about Wikipedia in this lecture and realized that the more I used it, the more helpful it was to my activities. In conclusion, objective data are needed in the task of deriving problems and results and suggesting solutions, and the appropriate site to support them is Wikipedia.   Looking back on t...

 1. Summary  "Manual of Style" is literally an instruction manual (article writing format) provided when writing articles within Wikipedia. These guidelines not only maintain Wikipedia's regularity, but also increase the credibility of Wikipedia users. It can also be edited by other users.   When writing articles on Wikipedia, refer to Mos, but pay more attention to the content. In order to make many people read the article, it is necessary to establish the article's argumentability in the title, lead section (a brief overview of the article), and heading.   Images should use what is appropriate for the text of the article and should not interfere with the text. Sometimes too many images accumulate, which can be located out of context, and should be distributed evenly within the article.   A reliable source (such as papers, news articles, etc.) should be identified. You need to try to format citations correctly. As an editor of Wikipedia, it is ne...

  1. Summary  Did you know(DYK) is a space that introduces Wikipedia's new additions to the public. In other words, it recommends a wide range of topics and facts/articles, making them more accessible. This is very special not only because it provides information to Wikipedia editors and those who want to get information from Wikipedia, but also because it can be a driving force for them to add or create new information. However, it should be remembered that DYK's page is not a space for new articles. In addition, depending on the purpose of DYK's operation, it is not necessary to have the same existing form as writing articles on Wikipedia. However, parts such as the length, source, and copyright of the article should be considered equally.  2. Interesting point  I wondered how recommended articles were selected according to the purpose of DYK's operation, which provides new information to people. Because not everyone was going straight up to the main page. Separat...

 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 dele...

What is “quality” for our societies?  Quality that can be described as "good, bad, best", etc. It generally refers to the level/evaluation of quality. And this quality changes every time. For example, while the first criterion for improving the quality of life was money, it may have changed its mind to health now. 2. Interesting points  How can Wikipedia 'quality' be evaluated? The quality of articles written on Wikipedia can be evaluated as good and bad. Wikipedia can immediately determine the quality of an article based on whether it comes from a source or not. As neutrality and objectivity are required in the article, personal views or blog posts are not suitable as sources. This is because official sources such as bibliography and news articles are much more reliable and objective than them. This is why it is important to reveal the source when participating as an editor on Wikipedia.   There are occasions when you can say, 'This quality is excellent!' to ...

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 som...

Can we think of some example of how Internet has changed our culture?   Today, the Internet has become a part of our lives. The Internet is hovering around us in some way or another. For example, we obtain information using an Internet search box or Wikipedia instead of a thick paper encyclopedia/electronic dictionary. Also, instead of writing letters and sending mail, we send our regards to our friends through e-mail, SNS, messengers, etc. We can even share files such as photos, videos, and documents with others in a single touch without the hassle of storing and sending files through features such as Bluetooth and AirDrop. At first we may have felt unfamiliar with this system. But now, rather, the previous system(like analog) may be stranger to this generation. Interesting point  This change in the Internet environment has made people more convenient. However, the development of the Internet has reduced the demand and supply for paper encyclopedias and electronic d...

When do you think we can use wiki as a source?  1. Summary  Articles we usually write on Wikipedia are based on academic material such as formal news articles and papers. And it's verified and verified by a lot of people. How about answering the question of when Wikipedia itself can be used as a source like this? Wikipedia has enough information that we can trust for the same reason as previously stated. Therefore, it is possible to use Wikipedia as a source at any time. Then you may have one question. Is all the information on Wikipedia reliable? As with other Internet sites other than Wikipedia, all information is not always accurate. We have to filter out the unnecessary information directly from the vast amount of information, and discern the false news. So is Wikipedia. Some of the sources of the article may not be registered, and may not be official. You'll have to be careful about this. 2. Interesting point  In fact, when I look at blogs written by others, I think ...

Do you think wikipedia is reliable? Why or why not? 1. Summary  Whenever I wrote a blog about Wikipedia, I said this way. "Wikipedia is a new online environment based on the accuracy and reliability of information." I sympathize with this part to some extent while participating in Wikipedia myself. Because most articles need to identify the source(reference) or background that supports each sentence. There is simply no proof of an individual's opinion or opinion. Therefore, in this case, most of the other participants on Wikipedia request or modify it themselves. This means that Wikipedia articles are not the only result of me, so I have to be more cautious. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean you can trust everything, but I think Wikipedia is a somewhat reliable information search site. 2. Interesting point  I've been trying to be careful about copyright and have been aware of it. But I've made a mistake on Wikipedia regarding copyright. Fortunately, I w...

  Why Wikipedia is the most efficient of all attempts to collect and organize? The Nature of Wikipedia and Its Differentiated Strengths  Wikipedia has been reborn as a representative information retrieval site in a new online environment based on information accuracy and reliability. Wikipedia's original goal was to give people a lot of accurate information in various languages. But early on, processing vast amounts of information was bound to run up against the wall of limits. However, Wikipedia's unique strengths have made it available to many people, such as being able to access all articles/academic materials on the site for free and being able to participate directly as an editor.   When asked in an interview if he believed people would voluntarily take the time to collaborate with Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales said he didn't know what to do, but he found faith in people who were happy just by sharing knowledge. Based on his beliefs, it is no exaggeration to say that W...

 What I have learned/realized about copyright is...  I went through several trials and errors as an editor of Wikipedia. I'm going to tell you about copyright-related parts of them.   Copyright is both a very important part and a very careful part. What is copyright? It means the legal right of the creator of the creation to his or her work. This is why, as many people know, works should not be downloaded or shared illegally. In case of infringement of such copyright, it may be punished because it is considered to be the same as committing a crime by law.   In my case, I have posted the official poster of the drama on Wikipedia. But it was requested to be deleted because I didn't take or make it myself. Thankfully, another editor and professor of Wikipedia pointed out my mistake. Since then, I have studied copyright-related issues and had time to think about any articles. I don't want you guys to make the same mistake as me. So please check the link  f...

  1. Summary and Interesting things   After I read a book, and I first used Wikipedia, the parts I felt were very similar to other people. The key is this. Wikipedia is worth more than an encyclopedia and exerts the power of the community on the premise of 'good'. Namely, Wikipedia, as the title of the book, is Good Faith Collaboration. Isn't it because of the nature of the open community, there is a tension of openness and mutual respect?  When a new culture is created in a new environment, people try to adapt to it. The same is true of Wikipedia's culture of cooperation.  Although there may have been trial and error at first, Wikipedia participants will share and discuss information endlessly with each other. Like an encyclopedia. And I think Wikipedia's strength is that we're getting more and more adapted to this process and gaining another value.  2. Discussion point  Raggle said, "I expect Wikipedia to continue to surprise us." And one of the...

How important are contributions of a single individual in the sea of “collective intelligence”?  The power of a group may be stronger than that of an expert. Let me give you an example you've heard at least once. When there are three options for the question, let's say the answer is "A" too naturally. But when everyone around you answers 'C' instead of 'A', what would you say is the answer? About 75 percent of people agree with the answer 'C'. Even if a group's opinion is not right, and even if you know what's right, members of the group can never ignore it. In other words, even with this piecemeal experiment, you can see how powerful the group is.  The more people gather, the more collective intelligence they have. However, just bringing people together doesn't always produce good results. Just like the case above. In order to make good use of the power of a group, it is important to make the results with everyone's power, not ...

  Summary  Wikipedia is an Free-open-source software(FOSS)-based encyclopedia that is open to everyone using the Internet. Therefore, anyone can easily access it without any restrictions. However, despite these shared services, the difference in utilization rates by country was extreme. Wikipedia's participation rate was certainly much higher in the U.S. and Europe than in Asia. The same is true of age. Generations that mostly use the Internet and those who are familiar with the Internet were using Wikipedia more than those who did not. However, gender has found some surprising facts. I thought there would be no big difference in the gender ratio of using Wikipedia regardless of gender. This was a wrong idea. In the 2011 Wikipedia editorial rate survey, 91% were male editors. Interesting/ Unusal items   So why did women show poor participation in Wikipedia? As a result of searching Wikipedia for gender bias, Gardner's opinion was available. The problem was that the ...

  Why do people contribute to wikipedia?  The world is changing gradually. And in a changing world, we live in harmony. The same is true of Wikipedia. People don't just accept information, they share it with people and even produce and modify it themselves. In other words, people are looking and preparing for the Internet 3.0 era further than the Internet 2.0 era.   Then why does the world change? It is to make a better world. Questions about why people contribute to Wikipedia can be answered in a similar context. It is to create a better Internet environment. And it's not just the provision and acceptance of information through Wikipedia, is it? By using Wikipedia, we can develop not only functional aspects but also broader thinking skills, and communicate seamlessly with various people. This is the biggest advantage of Wikipedia. And taking advantage of these advantages, Wikipedia may be an incentive for us to step up to a better world.  People do not contribu...

In my opinion...   Wikipedia is an open-source software-based website. Beyond the value of using the encyclopedia that anyone can freely use, it can be seen as an "information open community" for the community. That's why Wikipedia is increasingly emphasizing user rules and attitudes to be in place for people who use Wikipedia.   Considering the fundamental reasons for censorship, it would be a necessary process to prevent inappropriate postings, such as slander, abuse, and pornography, or to form a proper online culture.  I think censorship is necessary if such an article is posted on Wikipedia or becomes a source of obstruction. However, Wikipedia believes that self-censorship is sufficient if censorship occurs because all users can be editors at the same time. So I don't think Wikipedia is wrong to refuse censorship.  Let's think the other way around. Is censorship really creating a better website? Are there any disadvantages of censoring?  When we ...

  Summary  Collaboration through Wikipedia can lead to numerous disagreements. And talk about some solutions. The case of Disambiguation (collision I've experienced)  I made a mistake while editing Wikipedia yesterday. I wrote a new article by translating the title of my favorite drama into English. However, it was later discovered that there was already an article related to the drama, and now it has been solved with the help of the professor. Wikipedia has a process called "disambiguation" to resolve a conflict of article titles that occur when a title can be associated with more than one article. Consensus  Sometimes there are disputes that cannot be resolved by both joint discussions, managers, and arbitration. Not everyone agrees with the application of the policy of use as necessary. At this time, an agreement may be reached during the discussion depending on the majority's opinion.  However, if an agreement is not reached easily, everyone who is not ...

The pros and cons of using Naver vs Google for research purposes are..  What is the biggest difference between Naver and Google? First of all, Naver, which is firmly maintaining its position as the nation's No. 1 portal site, is literally being used by many people. It's not that people don't know Google, but what they're actually using is Naver.  Then, why do you use Naver? Naver is also a website that reflects the environment of Web 2.0. Instead of just looking at news articles and looking for information, you can provide various services on Naver, such as comments, blogs, cafes, knowledgeIN, and webtoons, share them with people in the community, and communicate interactive. Naver also implemented 'real-time search term service' a few weeks ago, although it is now gone. It was quick and simple to know what people were interested in and what today's hot issues were. Like this, Naver feels more like a community than just a website. And people are used to it. ...

Summary/ Interesting things  Think about  the application of free and open-source software (FOSS), access to and openness to information, and the relationships between the people who use it.  At the end of the blog I wrote earlier, I felt that I needed to reconsider the topic of the reading material. Of course, there are advantages of using Wikipedia, but on the contrary, the background of using these services cannot be overlooked. And in this reading, I can see that people are constantly working on this part.   What is needed in an "Open Space for the community"? I think transparency, equality, respect, and consideration are all necessary. As society changes, we must have a responsive attitude to it. That way, we will be able to move forward in line with the changes. As always mentioned in lectures and reading materials, we need to understand  the features of this webpage and follow the rules while using Wikipedia.   That way, we will be able to maint...

Summary  Web 2.0 refers to an Internet environment in which anyone can produce and consume data, rather than owning or monopolizing it. In other words, it is an Internet space centered on user engagement.   Web 2.0 consists of two-way communication that allows information to be accepted and shared, rather than the traditional Web 1.0 method of unilaterally communicating information. It is fundamental to play the role of the Internet and television and to do more than that. The best part is that you can communicate with everyone around the world anytime, anywhere. It is a community that has a tremendous impact to form another trend and change culture.   I thought these features of Web 2.0 were only made on SNS such as Instagram and Facebook. However, Wikipedia is also part of the Web 2.0. It hasn't been long since I knew and used Wikipedia, so far, the process of finding and modifying informations myself is very unfamiliar yet. But,  I think it's very meanin...