Blogging through Wikipedia (2021)

What did I learn while editing Wikipedia?  How is this assignment different from more traditional student assignments? Is it more fun? Before I took this class, I knew about the existence of Wikipedia, but I didn't know how to edit it or how to use it. During this class, I learned about Wikipedia editing methods and learned about Wikipedia rules and characteristics through trial and error by editing Wikipedia articles 10 times a week. At first, I was not used to it, so I found it difficult to edit Wikipedia every week. I tried my best, but sometimes it was returned because it didn't comply with the rules. Whenever that happens, I took the class again and asked the professor questions to find a solution. In this part, I learned the attitude to explore and learn about what I don't know. I felt this was the most different thing from other assignments.  I read so many different kinds of articles while editing Wikipedia every week after week. I read various articles while thinki...

Summary It aims to convey information that is not well known to the public among articles on Wikipedia. Every day, new articles are published on Wikipedia and exposed to the main page for a period of time. There are several rules to appear as DYK. First, it has to be the latest article, not the old one. It should be a newly created document within seven days and should be reviewed for copyright issues and compliance with Wikipedia policies. The length of the document should also be appropriate. Articles that meet various criteria are selected as DYK. Interesting point I knew for the first time that it was a function designed to inform the public of unknown articles. It was interesting that DYK also had rules. It must comply with Wikipedia's policies and rules and must be a recent document written within seven days. And the length of the article should also be sufficient. It was an interesting system to randomly select the latest news within seven days. If information is delivered t...

Summary Wikipedia has a standard for classifying documents, and classification makes it easier and easier to find what you want according to related items. To find information effectively, we need to select categories well. Wikipedia is capable of top or bottom classifications, which make it easy to distinguish between the subjects, which must have a clear basis for classification. Interesting point So far, I have never used Wikipedia to look for articles using categories, but I learned that related content can be found quickly through classification, and it was interesting that classification had a solid basis and had to be neutral.  Discussion Point Classification is said to maintain a neutral perspective, but different people think differently. How can neutrality be established to be reasonable?

Summary Usually, 'quality' is the evaluation of the level of good or bad for a good or service. Quality does not always have the same standards, but can always be changed and relative. For example, the latest smartphone purchased today is the best, but it will not be the best performance in just a year, and it may seem to be of poor quality. As such, standards for quality vary with time or with acceptors. Interesting point Our society pursues what is considered the best 'quality' of its time. So I think the development of the Internet and media has been able to achieve tremendous growth in a short period of time. Internet speed that used to be 2G and 3G exceeds LTE and can be used up to 5G now. As a result, people's lifestyles and behaviors have changed a lot from analog to digital. For example, the act of writing a letter or sending a text message is replaced by Kakao Talk or SNS messages.  Some people say that the "quality" of life has increased due to t...

Summary I think quality is a subjective thing. Since it is a person who accepts and values any object, whether it is an object or a culture, I think the quality of the object will be different according to each person's standards. Especially in the artwork, that point is more pronounced. In some cases, paintings considered graffiti are art pieces that boast a great price, and in others, boring books are bestsellers. Quality is, of course, subjective in this respect. The same is true of luxury goods. Only when you understand and appreciate the brand's value will you be able to recognize its quality and make purchases at great cost. For those who don't appreciate the brand value or don't know it well, it's just a useless consumable. Discussion Point I wonder if you have ever felt that quality was subjective in your life, and if so, what kind of story you have.

Summary The Internet has changed our lives and culture in general. I think the biggest change is to use the Internet for every little lifestyle. We no longer use thick encyclopedias. This is because searching through a smartphone can get information quickly and easily. Also, we can easily communicate with friends through Kakao Talk or SNS and share our daily lives. Through this, we can continue our relationship without having to face each other. Even when studying for the exam, more people use tablet PCs to study than print. Like this, the development of the Internet has changed our entire lives.   Interesting Point With the development of the Internet, I think it has become easier to maintain relationships with friends. This is because there are more ways to check each other's news and contact each other briefly without having to meet or call often. Recently, I didn't meet my friend in person on her birthday, but I sent her a gift through Kakao Talk. I thought it was simpl...

How to reduce the digital divide  In order to narrow the digital gap, I think continuous digital education is essential for the digital weak who have difficulty accessing information and communication technology. What I've felt most recently is the emergence of kiosks. With the emergence of kiosks, many articles have been reported that the elderly, disabled and children who do not know how to use it or are unable to order food due to difficulty in using the machine and suffer from frustration and difficulty in the digital gap. Most young people born in the digital age and enjoying digital benefits can easily adapt and use them, but those who do not often find their daily lives uncomfortable due to the information gap. Whenever new digital technologies emerge, steady "digital education" is needed to bridge the digital gap.   In fact, administrative agencies and companies are continuously providing digital education to the digital underdogs to reduce the digital gap. I ...

Summary In order to use Wikipedia as a source, I think it can only be used if the cited source is accurate and reliable. For example, if the citation source is the exact source of the thesis, article, etc.It is true that Wikipedia has a lot of accurate information, but I don't think all information can be used as a source because not all information is authenticated.   Interesting point It's hard to say 'yes' when you think about whether Wikipedia can be used as a source. This is because Wikipedia is not yet considered as accurate by people as it is by people. It is appropriate to obtain information when doing school assignments, but I am not sure if they will recognize its reliability when it is left as a source. Wouldn't it be more reliable to leave the article cited in Wikipedia as a source? Discussion point It's true that Wikipedia is not recognized for its accuracy as a source everywhere. What should be improved to be recognized as reliable data such as...

Do you think Wikipedia is reliable? Why or Why not? I think Wikipedia is reliable. I think so because editing Wikipedia requires strict rules that exist within the Wikipedia site. If you write down information that has unclear sources or anything that interferes with the flow, you treat it as inappropriate information and immediately delete the content and give a warning. In addition, when leaving the source of information as a link, I think it is more reliable to allow only some degree of reliability such as news, articles, and papers as sources. And Wikipedia is a site used by so many different people that you can check the power of collective intelligence. Even if the wrong information is written, someone else will come and correct the error. For these reasons, I think I can trust the information on Wikipedia.

Summary Wikipedia is an open space for anyone to edit freely. Anyone can easily edit anonymously if desired, so the accuracy and reliability of the information may be worrisome, but to prevent this, Wikipedia maintains Wikipedia's reliability with several internal functions. If what the editor posts is not helpful to the article or interferes with the flow, return it to protect the content and thoroughly inspect whether the source is clear and whether it infringes on copyright. Thanks to these checks and rules, Wikipedia is considered a reliable site. Interesting point While editing Wikipedia articles, I felt that reliability was very important. When editing Wikipedia articles or attaching images for assignments, it always says above to make sure they are not copyright infringements, and if they are judged to be a little disruptive to the flow, they are returned and warned really quickly. I was disappointed at first, but I think my credibility has been maintained so far because it ...

Q1. What do you find difficult? The hardest thing about editing Wikipedia was that I wasn't used to it. While taking this class, I edited Wikipedia for the first time, but I didn't know how to do it or what I shouldn't edit, so it took time to adjust at first. Among them, I especially hated it when the edited content was returned. Most of the time, they didn't tell me why, but it was harder because they didn't know what they did wrong. This part was the hardest part.   Q2. What do you find enjoyable? The thing I enjoyed the most about editing Wikipedia was that my edits to the article remained intact. I felt proud in that I could get this information from others by sharing what I knew and correcting the mistakes. I enjoyed this part the most.

Summary The book describes the community of Wikipedia. It consists of eight chapters including Wikipedia's systematic function, community, collaborative culture, cultural acceptance, leadership of open information websites, and interpretation. It also analyzes Wikipedia's characteristics and critical discussions. Overall, it explains what point Wikipedia is made of and what value it considers important.   Interesting point I was interested in the balance between Wikipedia's openness and the quality of information. In fact, Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia that anyone can participate in, so it may not be easy to maintain the level of information, but it is interesting that it still operates well with some balance between Wikipedia's internal regulations and user rules.   Discuss point Do you have any other advantages or disadvantages of Wikipedia besides the ones in this book? If so, what is there, and why?

Summary I think a person's contribution to collective intelligence is very important. Since individual opinions gather and collective intelligence is completed, even one person's opinions play an important role in completing collective intelligence. This is because sometimes individuals who know the truth about information that many people are not familiar with can correct it.   Interesting point Thinking about individual contributions from collective intelligence reminded me of the theory of "silent spiral." This is because I thought that the influence of individuals on the group would be great, although there is definitely an impact on the impact of individuals. This is because it is not easy for an individual to say "no" to what many say "right" like the spiral theory of silence.   Discussion point Do individuals have a great influence on groups in collective intelligence? Or are groups more influential on individuals? I am curious about...

                              Why do people contribute to Wikipedia? People will contribute to Wikipedia for various reasons. Wikipedia does not pay money or rewards when users share or contribute knowledge to Wikipedia. Nevertheless, many people are editing Wikipedia. First, let's look at the three reasons why people made the largest percentage of the many reasons for editing Wikipedia.   1. Liked the idea of volunteering to share knowledge 69% 2. Saw an error & wanted to fix it 64% 3. Knew a lot about subject that was poorly covered 50%   This shows that people mainly contribute to Wikipedia because of their desire to share and inform knowledge that they know. I feel satisfied and rewarded with sharing my knowledge and expressing my opinion, so I think people contribute even if there is no reward. People also have a desire to correct what is wrong. If I know the subject well and I see the...

Summary Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, but there are differences in participation rates by gender and age. The editing age ratio is 28% for those aged 40 or older, 19% for those aged 30 to 39, 26% for those aged 22 to 29, 14% for those aged 18 to 21, and 13% for those under 17. The age of 40 and older has the highest percentage of Wikipedia. In addition, 91% of Wikipedia editors are male, with distinct differences in participation rates in gender.   Interesting point I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia that anyone could use, so I thought it would be evenly divided between editors' age groups and genders, but I first knew it was a one-sided form. It is surprising that more people in their 40s and older edit Wikipedia than those in their teens and 20s who use the Internet more actively, and that men account for 91% of the editors. Why is there such a big difference? I wondered if there was such a reason.   Discus...

The Challenges of Consensus Summary   Wikipedia is a site where various people collaborated to gather knowledge and create an encyclopedia. As many people make it together, it can be difficult to agree or disagree with each other. This chapter deals with conflicts and difficulties in the decision-making process for people collaborating for Wikipedia. It is not easy to reach an agreement because each person has a variety of views and opinions. However, discussions should be continued to narrow differences and get closer to an agreement. In the process, it is important not to attack each other, and it is important to express opinions and reach an agreement through discussion.   Interesting point In fact, Wikipedia has a strong free and open image, so I never thought there would be a big problem with consensus. However, seeing this, it was a place where various people gathered together to share opinions and knowledge, so I felt that consensus was not easy and there were many ...

 My opinion I think Wikipedia is right to reject censorship. Wikipedia is an Internet encyclopedia where anyone can freely share and participate in knowledge. In other words, it is a field of collective intelligence that people make by collecting accurate information. However, if censored by any institution or person, Wikipedia's vision or purpose is likely to be completely ignored. Also, I think censorship is not right because it is hard to determine whether the subject and standard of censorship are objective.   If there is a false content or obstruction in Wikipedia, it is correct to delete it, but due to the nature of collective intelligence, users of Wikipedia can correct it or correct it inside Wikipedia. It would be difficult for people to freely share knowledge if censorship is conducted from the outside.   Considering these points, Wikipedia thinks it is right to reject censorship to protect the identity of the site.

Summary Naver and Google are famous sites that are used a lot for information retrieval. I think they both have different strengths and weaknesses. First of all, Naver is a famous Korean portal site, which is used the most, so it is easy to use because it is familiar and well adapted. Suitable for light searching or information acquisition. Also, it is convenient to check information by category. But the downside is that Naver has too many advertisements. If you search for a particular word, the advertisement comes up first before you get an explanation for it. In addition to Powerlink, there are many posts of inaccurate information such as blogs and cafe posts, so it is not easy to filter out high-quality information. Unlike Naver, Google can be relatively unobstructed by advertisements because only search windows exist on the main screen. Also, the advantage is that there is more specialized data and the amount of data is huge. However, vast amounts of data can be a disadvantage. It...

  Summary   This material includes an open content community with open characteristics. Wikipedia is also an open community where many people can freely access it. These open communities include characteristics such as open content, non-discrimination and non-interference, transparency, and open content. Wikipedia is open to everyone, but not everything is free. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, but if it interferes with the creation of an encyclopedia, it limits its editing.   The "The Puzzle of Openness" says it is helpful to use real names to balance openness with the qualitative value of information. Although anonymity can be suggested as an advantage of openness, the real-name system is effective for obtaining responsible information or balancing information quality. Discussions on how to balance this need to be continued.   An interesting point I learned   It was interesting to say that using real names can balance the qualitative value of information wit...

Summary Wikipedia, which has a vision of "Imagine a world in every single hman being can free share in the sum of all knowledge," is one of the most famous sites in the world. It is an online encyclopedia opened in 2001 with various languages and users. On Wikipedia, anyone can edit or edit the article, so it is freely available. You should not plagiarize when editing Wikipedia. In addition, biased or inaccurate information should be avoided.   New / Interesting things I learned I learned many things because I don't know much about Wikipedia yet. The most fascinating thing was that Wikipedia warns itself when it writes plagiarized articles. I thought it was a good rule to be warned several times due to plagiarism, which limits the right to write. Since anyone can edit the text freely, there may be problems with the revised content, but I thought Wikipedia's system would prevent the problem.   Discussion point Why is Wikipedia less popular than other developed ...