Blogging through Wikipedia (2021)

I learned a lot things from editing Wikipedia. First, I felt the pleasure of participating in the improving of knowledge. I wrote an article eon Wikipedia, which had not been on Korean Wikipedia. Through my working to editing, it is possible that Korean users be access this knowledge, so I get achievement. I know that in Wikipedia, the article was written by the several workers, but I was not sure if it was active. However, by participating in editing myself, I found that this was going on actively. I wrote the "Xinjiang Conflict" article. As I said above, it was not in Korean Wikipedia before. Naturally, I thought users were not interested in this. So, when I first wrote it, I translated the contents of the English Wiki's article using a translator, registered it without editing, and I thought "later, I will edit that.". However, the other worker deleted in a few hours later of registration. According to the History, it is because I translate with machine trans...

Summary Wikipedia:Did you know(DYK) is a discussion function on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's goal is to gather users' intelligence to create new article and to expand those so eventually expand knowledge. DYK is a function to achieve this goal. DYK showcases new and improved contents and explains those to readers. And emphasizes readers to induce new insights, aims at introducing unfamiliar topics, recognizes editors' efforts to expand and improve knowledge, and encourages readers to write articles. Through this process, DYK is ultimately urging collective intelligence. Its ultimate purpose will be to induce a virtuous cycle of collective intelligence by inducing positive aspects of collective intelligence through creative, expansionary, and high-quality pursuit. Interesting Point I knew that Wikipedia was an accessible without specific qualification. This was partly the right thinking, but it was funny that there was some interference form Wikipedia for alienated topics.  Discus...

Summary Categorization is a function that helps to retrieve data. In Wikipedia, the categorization feature helps search more systematically and quickly when we search for information. Without it, we would have wasted time searching for information. Therefore, the editor will need to set up a detailed category considering the user's convenience when writing the document. In addition, it would be essential to have a collation on an objective basis. Subjective categorization can rather confuse users and create doubts about the objectivity of information. Interesting Point It is interesting that simple functions greatly help the search for information. Discussion If the editor deliberately sets the category in a negative direction, I wonder how the user will be affected by it.

Quality can have an important meaning in our society. First of all, simply, it is a measure of society;s assessment. In general, if members of society expect the high quality level, it is expected that the society has the high level. And vice versa, it is expected that the society has the low level.  Quality can also help improve the minimum ability of members of society This may not be the case for people with higher quality than the average quality of society, but it may be a motivation for those with lower quality to reach the average quality. Thus, in addition to improving the minimum capacity, it could also contribute to improving the quality of society as a whole. Quality affects society as a whole. Whether it's moral, cultural, academic.

Quality is subjective or objective. Even if there is a level of quality that people generally expect, in the end it will vary from person to person. One individual has a different life and experience of another. Therefore, the quality they expect varies from individual to individual. For example, if a person studied the subject A as a major, he or she would have strict standards on the subject compared to others who did not study it. As such, standards for quality are subjective. However, whether the criteria are subjective or not, there will be a level that people generally expect when dealing with a subject, and at this time, quality is objective.

Before the advent of the Internet and its full-fledged development, scholars and the related argued that.: The space on the Internet is a place where people can treat each other without discrimination because they don't know each other's race, religion, or class. But it was different from what it really was. As the Internet developed and the Internet community became popular, the space for communication expanded, which stimulated human's nature. Because the other person did not know who he was, and the hate speech under anonymity did affect his social reputation and relationships, he rather expressed his thoughts without adding or exaggerating them, which eventually led to a greater division than in the past. I think our culture after the development of the Internet has probably become a culture of division. It has become a common "Internet Culture" for groups with common ground to unite and attack groups with opposite ideology to their own or attack inferior grou...

I'm not sure about Wikipedia's credibility. The only filter for inaccurate information in Wikipedia is user freedom. However, there is no guarantee that these free regulations will also be done correctly. If a large number of malicious users attempt to manipulate information about a particular topic, a small cumber of users will not have much way of preventing it. Even if public debate overcomes malicious users for  a while, if interest in the issue diminished, malicious users will eventually win. Therefore, I am somewhat skeptical about Wikipedia's credibility.

 The difficulty was the process of having a reliable level when others using Wikipedia saw the article. Since it is a space that can be used by everyone without restrictions, there was a concern to increase reliability. However, I was able the find joy in the process. It was fun to learn the knowledge that I didn't know while researching the data, to read the article written by others, and to expand the knowledge to another article related to it.

Summary Good Faith Collaboration is a book about topic in Wikipedia and community in that. It consists of eight chapters, describing the functionality, community and more of Wikipedia. What the book explains is that, after all, Wikipedia is base on 'Good Faith Collaboration', as the book names it. As the Internet develops, dictionaries have moved their space from offline to online, and trust in them comes from Good Faith. Interesting It was interesting that trust could be created even among online users who did not know each othehr. Discussion I wonder if only Good Faith is the driving force of Wikipedia

  There are many reasons why people contribute to Wikipedia. Followings are my thoughts. Wikipedia has no financial compensation. Writing it doesn't follow social honor. Then why do people contribute to Wikipedia? I think it's probably psychological or intellectual satisfaction. Whether others make a positive assessment of what I wrote or give feedback on my article through negative assessment, the writer will gain psychological satisfaction. Maybe this is the motivation for people to contribute to Wikipedia.

  Summary The benevolent dictator emerged to reach a desirable agreement under uncertain circumstances. In many conflict situations, leadership is needed to end the conflict, in which a benevolent dictator can be described as a leader with strong leadership rather than a dictator. But they should be wary of this because they can make biased judgments. These leaders also have a good influence on Wikipedia.   Interesting Wikipedia is a place where people of various values can post their opinions without restriction. That is why consensus on the concept will be difficult, and it is interesting to know the definition of existence that can solve it.   Discussion When a benevolent dictator has malicious intentions, I wonder if the other participants will conform to it or if another benevolent dictator will emerge.

1. How do we participate in Web 2.0? The word Web 2.0 may be unfamiliar. But this is not a difficult one. If Web 1.0 unilaterally shows information through the Internet, Web 2.0 is a web technology that allows participants to produce information directly based on the spirit of openness, participation, and sharing and communicate in two directions. A typical example of Web 2.0 is Wikipedia, and interestingly, it is Wikipedia that I found the definition of Web 2.0. As such, Web 2.0 is not a difficult one. Likewise, participating in Web 2.0 is not difficult. Perhaps most of the Internet sites and social networking sites you use today belong to Web 2.0. Already you are participating in this, producing and sharing information. However, the only thing to pay attention to is not how to participate in Web 2.0, but What kind of attitude you choice about Web 2.0. 2. How do we create the modern-day culture?                           ...