Blogging through Wikipedia (2021)

I think that in any era, society, or group, the standard of 'quailty' exists as good/bad/normal. In general, if the quality is good, the probability of being evaluated positively is high, and if the quality is poor, there is a high probability that it will be evaluated negatively. But to the point, it is the probability. It may not.  Recently, the word “B-class” is used in front of various words. You've probably heard the word B-class content at least once. This means that it is more unnatural and less complete than A-Class, and its quality is inferior. However, this "B-class" is not evaluated negatively by people. It is intentionally intended to be Class B, not Class A. For those who accept, Class B is more fun and elicits a positive response. There are examples include LG Household & Health Care FIJI and Chungju City promotional posters . Good or bad quality can usually be determined by a number of people.  However, it cannot be said that the average qualit...

1. Summary I think that image quality is subjective. This can be explained as an issue with critical views on entertainer painters such as actors and painters Goo Hye-sun, Solbi, and Ha Jung-woo. They are entertainers and are engaged in artistic activities at the same time. Some see this positively, while others see it with a low-profile gaze. They point out that it feels like they're doing their art as an event. This shows that the attitude toward image quality varies from person to person. Each person's values ​​and thoughts influence their subjectiveness. Because of this, some people are greatly impressed, while others are not. Criticism arises because it is subjective. 2. Interesting point Group WINNER's Song Min-ho became an official artist by participating in SEEA 2019. In addition, through the 'Korean Eye 2020' project, he exhibited his paintings at the Saatchi Gallery in London, England. Is his image quality currently objective? 2. Discussion point What do y...

1) I don't think there's anything 100% in the world. Wikipedia is also trying to be reliable. By adding citations and everyone has the authority to revise it. Citation can contribute to the reliability of the information. Also, anyone with Wikipedia membership has the right to modify it to increase credibility by allowing for the variability of information. It is reliable because they want to avoid monopoly and make better results through cooperation. 2) I have experience that my editing was modified by another partner. People who are highly involved in the information or writing are closely watching the editing. On the other hand, there may be articles and information that do not. It can be a reliable Wikipedia when many people cooperate. 3) Do you have any experience that your editing has been modified by others?

  1. Difficult things When editing Wikipedia, I always ask the question: Does my editing contribute to completeness? The question of whether it will help users when adding information seems to be the toughest. It's also difficult when I'm confused about whether my editing is being done the right way. Although other editors or professors can help me in the right direction, it is often difficult for me to judge. 2. Enjoyable things I am happy to help others by filling out information that is not on Wikipedia. Until now, I have lived as an information acceptor, not an information provider. I usually edit about Korea, Environment that I am interested in on Wikipedia. It's to add existing information, but I'm enjoying the generation of information within Wikipedia. 3. Discussion point I feel good when editing information generating on Wikipedia. However, it is also sad when information is edited or modified by others. What about you? What attitude do you take to edit ...

We need to pay attention to "people" to answer this question. Everyone can contribute to Wikipedia. It is not only for experts who have a lot of knowledge in one field to edit.  As information becomes more accessible than before, ordinary people can easily obtain the information they need.  It is not an exaggeration to say that we live in a flood of information, from professional and reliable information to inaccurate or completely incorrect information. Here we can find out why people are contributing to Wikipedia. In a flood of information, editors are working together to find a better description. In other words, contributing to Wikipedia is the concern of the world in which we live, and protecting the right of people to access less error-prone information. In addition, people with traits who like to find and share information about their favorite topics will contribute.

According to Wikipedia's Community Engagement Insights in 2017, many of Wikipedia's editors are in their 40s economically rich European men who speak English.     The Wikipedia editor I inferred is as follows.   First, Wikipedia editors seem to be people who want to create 'synergy' through collaboration. Wikipedia has the characteristic that anyone can participate, but no one owns it. The information edited by oneself is re-edited by someone to reduce errors. It seems that the editors of Wikipedia are those who believe in and appreciate the possibility of synergy between these partners.    Second, Wikipedia editors will be those who are actively learning and trying to organize them. I first encountered Wikipedia while taking the Collective Intelligence class. If I hadn't taken this class, I wouldn't have been able to act as an editor for Wikipedia. But among those who don't take this class, I know the Wikipedia editor.  I'm going to describe him ...

Wikipedia is not as popular as other countries in Korea. The reasons are as follows. First, the degree of involvement in the source and reliability of the information is not high. We often use the ‘Naver’ portal, Naver 지식인, and YouTube to get information in Korea. There is a gathering of wisdom, knowledge, and experiences of not only the authority but also the general public. This means that what the authority says, the accuracy of the information and the fact are not essential. It is like saying that there is no high alertness about information.  Therefore, "fake news" is a problem in Korean society. Production and censorship of fake news are also problems, but people are not critical and accept it unconditionally. Second, We are more familiar with the acquisition of information. For the use of Wikipedia, it is essential to generate information.  However, we have worked hard since childhood to read existing information. This means that it is unfamiliar to collect, summar...

1. Summary Speaker Mitch Resnick is the developer of Scratch, where you can learn coding. He emphasizes the importance and versatility of coding education, starting with the story that children made "Mother's Day" cards using Scratch coding.  2.  Something new or interesting After watching this video, I solved the misunderstanding about coding. I've always recognized the need for coding education, but I turned away from coding because I don’t become a coding expert. However, the speaker says that the reason for learning coding is not to become an expert, but to think systematically and to promote collaboration and creativity. I agree with him. Beyond simply learning coding, learning coding leads us to develop in a better way than when we have not learned it. There is a saying, "There is a big difference between knowing and not knowing.” When I studied coding and could make use of it, I became firmly convinced that I could see a bigger world. 3. I n-depth perspect...

March 06, 2021   1. The Age of Sharing Information is no longer privately owned or utilized but is 'sharing' with people. People share the information they have and receive the information they need to use to solve the problem. First of all, YouTube is an example. YouTubers deliver professional information and detailed experiences to subscribers. At the same time, they subscribe to other YouTube channels to obtain necessary information and to solve questions. The sharing of information through comments is also active. The second is a clubhouse that has recently become a hot topic. This is an SNS that can only be communicated by audio, where small daily lives are made here, new business models are created or in-depth discussions are held. It is appropriate as a window of collective intelligence. With the emergence of famous businessmen, politicians, and entertainers, more people want to share information, and the value of listening is increasing. Like this, we do not keep inform...