Blogging through Wikipedia (2021)

  W5 : Do you think Wikipedia is right to reject censorship? I don't think Wikipedia's refusal to censor is just right. Wikipedia is a free space for so many people. This will allow Wikipedia articles to be more organized and provide quality information. However, too many people can use it freely without barriers to entry, so we don't know what will happen. Someone may provide too biased information, and someone may play a malicious prank on Wikipedia articles. Considering all these worrisome situations, I think proper censorship is inevitable. However, if censorship is inevitable, there may be another headache. It's the standard of censorship. It would be a person, not a machine, who determines whether the content fits the topic of the article. There may be people in the world who are not biased towards either side. But I think it's hard for most people to stay 100 percent neutral. If a person who is not neutral participates in the censorship, he or she will delete...

What are the pros and cons of using Naver versus google for research purposes?   First of all, Naver is Korea's representative search platform and is familiar to the Korean people. If you search for something on Naver, related articles, photos, blogs, and contents appear through cafes. And Naver has an "intellectual" service where you can ask questions to many unspecified people and get answers from them if you have any questions. I don't know what other people will be like, but I personally get some information from Naver through the articles, blogs, cafes, and 'intellectual'. I think they are the most suitable services for the purpose of solving questions, not the purpose of studying something. However, the gist of the question is when you 're studying' something. We need more objective information. Blogs, cafes, and "intellectual" are full of unverified data. This is because there are no major barriers to entry to the above services, and t...

 How do we participate in web 2.0? How do we create the modern-day culture? answer  I didn't know exactly what web 2.0 meant. However, after listening to the lecture, we learned that we have always enjoyed web 2.0 very hard. First of all, I remembered YouTube as a representative of web 2.0, which I am currently enjoying. YouTube simply consists of publishers who upload videos and viewers who watch them.  However, YouTube has a function to post comments. I don't know what other countries will be like, but in Korea's YouTube service, there is a function to see popular comments first, and you can reply to each comment. In addition, the replies are notified to the comment publisher, and discussions are held.  It wasn't just a platform where uploading videos and watching them were the end. It is well suited to the characteristics of the interactive Internet in web 2.0. Besides YouTube, online games are also a place to communicate.  Online games are the biggest to enj...

 Summary Wikipedia is a system that can be edited freely by various people. In my last post, 'W3: How do you feel about that?' I said that there is nothing bad about this system, which is freely edited by others, because it eventually makes good creations. However, I also thought that if people redistribute and edit too indiscriminately, there would be problems. But Wikipedia was not such a weak system. The modified history shows the previous page version. And there is another feature, which highlights changes between the two revisions, allowing the editor to view and restore previous versions of the document. It was a feature that offset the problem I thought. Linus Law : "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" what does it mean? answer :  Wikipedia has become so popular around the world that it also has software that allows volunteers to edit wiki. It literally has a lot of eyes, so you can see the error well. So it seems to mean that it can be corrected more ...

Q) since all your contributions are freely licensed to the public, no editor owns any article, all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed. how do you feel about that?   I can't seem to help it. The advantage of Wikipedia's system itself is that it can be edited freely with various people participating. Therefore, I think Wikipedia was able to have its current status. If it is edited and redistributed maliciously, it can feel bad right away. However, it will also be modified in the right direction by various people as time goes by. My contribution is repeatedly revised by others. If this results in a better creation, I am satisfied with it. Rather than my contribution being mercilessly edited, I think that I and many people could work together to produce good results .

Q) "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." is this realistic?  The answer to this question is no first. I'm not sure how far the "knowledge" you mentioned is. I see knowledge and information in a similar concept. I think having information that is not universal in modern society is a property. Let's say that there are people who are benefiting from non-universal information. Not all of them, but if people were in that situation, it wouldn't be a good thing to let most people know that information. It's because most people can continue to benefit if they don't tell them. But we don't know what happens if we share information with other people. The story may flow in a good direction, but most of the time it won't.  I think it might sound very selfish. However, not everyone is like this. There are certainly many people who want to share knowledge with the public interest. I have no in...

  As I mentioned in the first blog post, NamuWiki is similar to the composition of Wikipedia, which can be called Korea's Wikipedia. The downside of NamuWiki is that its reliability is not guaranteed.  Therefore, it seems desirable for NamuWiki to simply solve simple questions or approach them in a simple sense of fun.   However, Wikipedia is being used a lot by governments and companies. I realized that Wikipedia should not be seen lightly like NamuWiki. I think I am given a great responsibility in writing Wikipedia's documents in the future. On the other hand, I'm scared. However, the technology that deals with Wikipedia is becoming more useful in the modern work environment, and I want to work hard as much as I'm scared.  And I felt a lot of pressure when deciding the topic. However, I gained confidence after hearing the professor's words that I should do anything else, such as my hobby, hometown, country, etc Why do you think Wikipedia is becoming more accep...

Why are you taking this class?  There is a search engine similar to Wikipedia in Korea. It's called NamuWiki. It doesn't end when the content of the data is set, but it continues to be modified by various people, creating better quality data. I was interested in the process in which people voluntarily participated in making such quality documents. I sometimes spend my time at NamuWiki looking at various information such as celebrity information, sports stars, and Korean history. I felt the charm of this search engine, but I never thought of participating in it myself. Professor piotr's class of collective intelligence is significant in that it allows me to make such documents now. What practical skills do you expect to gain from attending it? As I said before, I expect that I can now have an active position of providing information to others from a passive position of receiving information. Wikipedia is a warehouse that so many people use.  Therefore, I want to enhance my a...