Blogging through Wikipedia (2021)

 1. What did I learn while editing Wikipedia?  I did my best to provide the right information. As a member of the collective intelligence, as a member of Wikipedia, I felt responsible for joining the vast flow of knowledge. It also learned to organize information systematically, categorize and categorize it literally as an "encyclopedia". Through this, I think I can use the categories well to select and acquire the information I want when I encounter existing processed information. 2. How is this assignment different from more traditional student assignments?  Other existing class assignments have already been made in the form of processing information using given information and adding my thoughts. But this class could be the subject of producing information myself. That's why I felt a great responsibility.

  1. Summary "Did you know?"It's a function that allows Wikipedia users to talk to people and stimulate interest in articles by citing interesting points in their articles they read. Wikipedia's new articles are selected and published every day, and articles are nominated among them through strict standards. Nominated articles are displayed on the main page. 2. Impressive I think Did You Know article selection process is an example of using collective intelligence well. I didn't know articles were manually reviewed by people. I think the Did You Know function is also a realization of collective intelligence in that several people review articles that gather knowledge from multiple people. 3. Discussion Is there any new article you came across through this section? How did it affect your existing insight?

1. Summary This article describes the classification capabilities of Wikipedia. Classification is a system that helps you quickly find items related to pages. It cannot be duplicated in lower and higher categories; it should be placed in the most detailed categories according to content to avoid confusion. This is to enable the reader to find information quickly and accurately. Each category must be named correctly to represent its content. When classifying writings, the characteristics of the topic should be identified by clear criteria so that the reader cannot question it. 2. Interesting points It was interesting that it made it easier for users to find information by utilizing category tag add-ons. 3. Discussion Have you ever categorized information using categories on Wikipedia? What kind of difficulties did you have?

 1. Summary Quality is a measure of the level of good and bad for a good job or service. Quality varies with the times, so it is relative, but it can also be seen absolutely when clear criteria exist. Depending on the background of the times, the values that people value vary, and the evaluation that individuals have of society varies. Quality does not always have the same standards, but it can always change and be relative. 2. Interesting &   Discussion  points How can Wikipedia 'quality' be evaluated? Can novelty of the subject be the criterion? The source of the data, the accuracy of the information, etc. will increase the reliability of the information. However, can these guarantee 'quality'? What are some measures that can guarantee Wikipedia's 'quality'?

  I think it it subjectiv e.  For example, if someone clearly defines "art is what" and everyone agrees with it, I think art ends there. Art is not fully explained and has opened up infinite possibilities, so attempts to continue to challenge, question, and break away from the existing ones are made.  The more people talk about any word or concept and the more they say their opinions, the more difficult they become and the more relative they seem to be.  In other words, image quality may vary depending on the viewer and the purpose of using it. Depending on the atmosphere and purpose of the post, excessive clear image quality may not match. For example, if you want to explain vintage, you can fully express the concept as image quality. Low image quality, then, is a high quality tool for the author of the post.

The Internet encourages the public to participate directly in politics. People encounter social issues on the Internet and freely share their thoughts on them. It not only shares ideas, but also urges to revise laws, points out wrong laws, forms social public opinion and leads the trend. Administrative processing speed also depends on how much people care about important social issues. On the cultural side, the boundary between creator and entertainer has now collapsed. People who enjoy culture soon become creators, and creators are also greatly influenced by them. The act of enjoying the culture itself is regarded as an art, and rather a new genre is pioneered by the enjoyment. For example, YouTube allows all entertainers to create their own channels and engage in creative activities. Even if a person is a subscriber to a particular channel, he or she is not just a subscriber, but also an operator of his or her own channel and a creator who creates content.

   I don't believe in Wikipedia 100%. This is because it is impossible to determine how professional the writer is in the field. I don't trust myself that much. However, various sources of data are factors that increase reliability. When the professor showed me a clear list of trusted and unreliable sites in this class, I became more confident. I think Wikipedia users should develop their ability to judge Wikipedia's credibility firsthand. Rather than unconditionally accepting information, we should develop a habit of questioning and verifying accuracy. In a similar context, media literacy education is likely to help in that process. It is time to learn how to use media simply, and learn how to selectively accept media.

  1.       What do you find difficult? Wikipedia's UX/UI was difficult to use. It was even difficult to find a button to simply publish. Also, it was difficult to determine whether the existing information was accurate. I was cautious if I could add an opinion to the incorrect information. 2.       What do you find enjoyable? Even if it's a topic I know well, I've seen a lot of other people write things that are different from the knowledge I know about that topic. In that case, I can double-check the knowledge I have known. If I knew the wrong information, it would be an opportunity to correct it. 3.       Discussion What attitude do you take when you discover information different from what you knew? Do you revise it right away with confidence in what you know? Or do you tend to look up more about it?

 1. Summary Good faith cooperation is a phenomenon in which Wikipedia users use and discuss sites on the premise that others' opinions will be true. Wikipedia editors' patience and manners promote cooperation and collaboration. This collaborative nature of Wikipedia presents a community culture of collaboration. 2. New knowledge & Insight  Although strangers met in a virtual space, it was impressive that they created common knowledge through good-will cooperation with invisible faith. It was interesting that it was a space without laws and regulations, but it was a space where far more ideal values were realized than in the real world where laws and regulations exist. 3. Discussion  If Wikipedia guarantees thorough anonymity, can a positive collaboration culture be maintained? I want to know what you think.

  1. Summary From a gender perspective, 91% of Wikipedia editors are male. In terms of nationality, 20% of editors live in the United States. Germany followed with a high percentage. 2. New knowledge & Insight Far from the demographic proportion, we found that the proportion of female users among Wikipedia users was significantly smaller. According to Gardner, the reason was that Wikipedia's language was masculine, mostly aggressive and lacking openness. But I guess there are other reasons besides these.  Simply, women's tendencies may not fit Wikipedia's character, and other social and structural causes may have worked. 3. Discussion Why else is there less women's participation in Wikipedia?

  1. Summary The consensus may seem to be unanimous, but it is actually closer to reaching the best solution. An agreement is to find the best intersection by reflecting the characteristics and opinions of as many people as possible. It is by no means an easy process, so the outcome when an agreement is actually reached is more valuable and enjoyable. The agreement reflects the opinions of as many people as possible, but the opinion is because voting can completely rule out minority opinions. There is a risk of disregard. Wikipedia is a representative platform for the process of consensus. Agreement is reached through discussion here. 2. New knowledge & Insight Majority voting sometimes provides the convenience of decision-making, but I thought it might not be suitable to realize a perfect democracy because minority opinions can be completely excluded. However, it is time consuming to reach an agreement in all decision-making processes, and it will also be costly and energetic....

I do not support Wikipedia censorship. Because Wikipedia's purpose is tarnished from the point of censoring information. Censorship is also up to the user himself or another user. Wikipedia needs to set the stage for platform and dialogue. Wikipedia should not be involved in the quality or justification of information. Such behavior is detrimental to the development of collective intelligence. The problematic information that may arise from Wikipedia is something that needs to be fixed together through discussions and arguments from users. That's the significance of Web 2.0, and it's the desired intelligence of modern society.

  I usually get information that is close to my daily life through Naver and collect information that is needed for academic research through Google. Naver can search by category, and it shows information that is highly related to me as a priority. Google, on the other hand, aims to search for accurate information based on search keywords. That's why I pick Naver's most useful search function as "Naver Data Lab." I'm currently working for an advertising company and want to know how people react to certain keywords and how popular they are. "Naver Data Lab" shows how much the search word I want has generated in a particular period of time, age group, and gender. In addition, Naver offers a variety of custom search services. On the other hand, when I search for a particular search term, Google captures even the smallest clues associated with it and presents accurate results. Also, I can search for things I want to exclude and add (as if coding) using signs...

 1. Summary Web 2.0 refers to a user-participated Internet environment where anyone can easily produce and share data. For example, Facebook, Wikipedia, etc., which allows anyone to easily share content. That is why users should choose carefully the information they provide and should also be responsible. The Web 2.0 environment is creative and open to everyone. The scalability is endless and creates new cultural trends in many areas. 2. New knowledge, insight I found myself participating in Web 2.0, the platforms I always use in my daily life such as SNS, YouTube, and the actions I do in them. Also, it was amazing that I might be contributing to creating a new culture without my knowledge. 3. Discussion Are you familiar with regulations on people spreading groundless information to others in a Web 2.0 environment, such as fake news? Have you ever spread false information on such a platform even by mistake? If you learned that later, how did you deal with it?

  1. Summary In this speech video,  Mitch Lesnick said everyone should learn about coding.  Mitch Lesnick talked about the advantages of learning programming.  The first advantage of coding, Lesnick said, is that by learning coding, you can learn to create new things and think constructively. Also, you can learn to communicate with others. Therefore, Lesnick says it is necessary for children to learn coding. 2. New knowledge and insight I actually thought coding was the domain of a particular expert. But after watching this video, I found that coding fundamentally helps us think creatively. I find it difficult to solve math problems, but I wanted to learn how to think logically by learning coding. 3. Discussion Have you ever communicated with others through coding and improved your creativity? I'm curious about your examples.

   Why are you taking this class? I find it difficult to find information on the Internet and select the right information for me. Wikipedia has provided me with considerable convenience. I really wanted to take this class that teaches me how to use Wikipedia and create my own. By utilizing Wikipedia, I want to experience the abstract concept of collective intelligence. What practical skills do you expect to gain from attending it? I want to develop the ability to read long texts and summarize the key points. Through this, I want to practice making the right title for the writing. It is because I think that making the right title is also one of the writing skills. Also, I want to feel from what perspective other people look at the same information. It is wonderful to create a great discourse with people who have different views from mine.