Blogging through Wikipedia (2021)

 What did I learn while editing Wikipedia? I learned a lot from editing Wikipedia. In particular, I learned about Wikipedia's credibility again. In fact, if you look at my W1 posting, you can see that I think of Wikipedia as a sort of untrustworthy medium, but that changed as the class progressed. As I edited Wikipedia articles, I found that writing reliable information requires a lot of additional materials and that such efforts consist of one article. Also, I learned that there is a lot of really useful information in the English version of Wikipedia. I was really surprised to see that the English version of Wikipedia was stored almost completely in all fields of art, food, customs, artists, and movies from other countries. This made me quite tired because I had nothing to edit, but it was good to get a lot of information that I didn't know. How is this assignment different from more traditional student assignment? Is it more fun? It was good to have a high degree of freedom....

 1. Summary Howard Rheingold talks about the history of collaboration in this video. He's explaining how people created communities, what they did, what they communicated, and what political ways they came into being. He adds that people who are connected by the Internet may create a new economic form or system. (evolving collaboration over the Internet) 2. Interesting point The part that explained the ultimatum game was interesting. It was amazing that people made different collaborative decisions depending on the culture. And the content of this video about the tragedy of the commons has helped me a lot to supplement this video, which I'm writing about. 3. Discussion point Will there really be a collaborative system in the next generation?

 1. Summary Wikipedia has a function to classify documents. When editing a document about a country or theory, Wikipedia can do either a higher classification or a lower classification. This classification allows viewers to easily identify what major topics this document contains or what topics it covers. However, when using Wikipedia's classification function, there must be certain grounds for proper classification, and it must be neutral.  2. Interesting point It was interesting to note that Wikipedia, in addition to the general classification, collects short-volume snippets of documents and articles that need to be sorted out. Since it is an encyclopedia that utilizes collective intelligence, I thought I could access this classification to supplement documents that lack content. 3. Discussion point What classification of articles do you usually edit? I think there will be categories that each person mainly edits, such as psychology and music.

 Can we think of some examples of things that once were considered high quality but today are not? And vice versa - what is not seen as high quality but once wasn't? In society, we can evaluate the "quality" of everything and the reputation of those things has always changed slightly. Even a roadside stone allows us to evaluate quality. Now you might rate it useless and of low quality. But the stone could have been a very good hunting or gathering item a long time ago, in the Neolithic period. The same is true of DVDs and CDs. In the past, it may have been a high-quality entertainment product, such as watching videos and listening to music through them, but now people don't use them very well because their value has changed.   In conclusion, as in the example above, quality in our society is ubiquitous and always changing. Because value judgements about everything are always different, so are the reviews of the quality of things. Discussion point What do you think is ...

 1. Summary Of course it is subjective. The fact that quality is subjective is most evident when we evaluate art works. Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain" is a work of art that turns a male urinal into a work of art. Seeing this, people of that time left his work out of the exhibition hall and did not recognize it as a work of art. However, his work is now credited with building the concept of 'ready-made', pointing to Duchamp as a pioneer in contemporary art. It's hard to generalize about "quality" that is not an art category, but I don't think quality in any field will be fixed because people's thoughts change constantly over time like Duchamp's work. 2. Interesting point At the Lotte World Mall exhibition in Korea in March, visitors scribbled on 500 million won worth of works, causing a big stir. The painting was an abstract painting, and even a paint container and brush were placed in front of the painting, which was mistaken by a tourist wh...

 1. Summary  The Internet has changed our culture so much. First, through the Internet, we can meet people regardless of distance. People in each country communicated over the Internet and reduced the barriers to distance by creating relationships. Also, the Internet has let us stay away from books. When we want to find expertise, we can get it from Wikipedia or Google. Even information in books can be obtained through e-books, reducing access to libraries and paper books. 2. Interesting point Further to the above, our brains are gradually degenerating because we don't have to remember information. We are constantly interrupted by SNS notifications ringing on our phones when we do something, so our concentration and attention are being reduced. Furthermore, the ease of obtaining information online is causing our short-term memory to decline. 3. Discussion point I think the Internet has made it easy to sever a relationship with a person because we can meet another person simply...

 1. Summary Wikipedia articles are mostly reliable. The reason why I answered so vaguely is that some articles contain information that does not have an exact source. If there is no exact source for Wikipedia articles on the topic I want to use as a resource, I will not use it. Conversely, if articles have exact sources such as articles and papers, I would write Wikipedia articles as reliable sources.  2. Interesting point Wikipedia has a function called "featured articles".  The article, labeled as a featured article, is a reliable article through a verification based on a reliable source. These articles are well worth using materials and are very smooth to read. When I need to use Wikipedia's resources, I think I'll make use of this featured articles a lot. 3. Discussion point Is it correct to evaluate the credibility of Wikipedia's article based on the credibility of the cited sources?

 1. Summary Wikipedia's articles are easy to change as many people edit. Accordingly, the credibility of an article is likely to change. Wikipedia created several features to keep it from losing credibility. Typically, editors use the citation and external link introduction function to write reliable information, and examine whether the original source of these materials is reliable as well. Thanks to these efforts, it seems to Wikipedia is becoming increasingly accepted in science where objectivity and reliability are important. related paper 2. Interesting point I edited an article about VIPS last time, and I found all of my edits disappeared because it's too commercial. Actually, I didn't think what I was writing was promoting VIPS. I think this strict part of Wikipedia is another point that enhances credibility. 3. Discussion point Is Wikipedia professional? Why have more and more scientists come to cite Wikipedia? 

 1. difficult things I edited several articles on Wikipedia for eight weeks. Editing Wikipedia articles has been giving me a hard time every week. Among that, the hardest thing for me was whether people could easily understand what I wrote. For example, I was editing an English version of Wikipedia about Korean traditional food last week. Writing down the recipe for traditional food in English, I found it is very difficult to distinguish whether this word or expression was right or not. Another difficulty is making tables! Wikipedia must use its own templates to create tables and cannot change color, size, and text alignment at will. When I made a few tables on Wikipedia, they looked terrible that I eventually gave up making them. 2. enjoyable things It is most enjoyable for me to edit an article that I'm interested in. The Korean traditional food mentioned above was a topic that I was interested in, so even though editing was difficult, it was really fun when I chose words and exp...

 1. Summary This book presents the characteristics of Wikipedia and its users, explaining how Wikipedia has become a successful open encyclopedia through good faith collaboration. More specifically, while examining various Wikipedia articles and problems within Wikipedia, the author explains how good faith collaboration can occur and problems can be solved.  2. Interesting / Useful point Last week, I saw many students talking about Wikipedia's gender problem : the lack of female users. Interestingly, this book said the same thing about it as we commented on the problem. But, contrary to the book's implication that the problem will be solved positively, the problem is still not being solved and Wikipedia still have the problem for a long time.    3. What I learned from reading it I learned about the process of developing cooperative culture into collective intelligence. Just as people gathered and changed society from a hierarchical one to a democratic one, such dispu...

 1. Summary There are many reasons. Wikipedia can be edited for fun. Just as we turn on SNS when we are bored, Wikipedia can be a playground for editors when they are bored. Second, if there is information that they think they should share, they share that knowledge. For instance, when my favorite singer's album comes out, one of the fastest ways to make it widely known is to use Wikipedia. Third, Wikipedia can be edited for a sense of accomplishment. Wikipedia's great advantage is that when someone creates or modifies an article, it shows who the editor is and what has changed. This makes editors show how much they contributed to the article later and feel accomplished. 2. Interesting point The number of editors, total edits, and total amount of documents in Korea Wikipedia are decreasing. I was really sorry to think that most of the editors probably went to namuwiki or flowed into another platforms. 3. Discussion point  Is the number of editors in Wikipedia likely to increas...

 1. Summary According to Wikipedia, the editor age ratio was 13% for those under 17, 14% for those aged 18 to 21, 26% for those aged 22 to 29, 19% for those aged 30 to 39, and 28% for those aged 40 or older. Except for those in their 20s, the higher the age group, the higher the proportion of Wikipedia editors. 2. Interesting point It was amazing that Wiki editors in their 40s and older accounted for the largest percentage. I expected a lot of young people to use Wikipedia because its editors have to know how to use the Internet, but it was my stereotype. These statistical results made me realize that it is true that 'Wisdom comes with age'. 3. Discussion point So, on the contrary, why does Wikipedia have the smallest percentage of youth users even though there is no age limit?

 1. Summary Very important! If individuals are not gathered, there is no "group" in the first place. Each individual contribution brings together a mass of information and becomes a collective intelligence. If a person has a wrong idea or knowledge, his contribution is also important. This is because even wrong information can be shared and corrected. 2. Interesting point I remember an example of success thanks to collective intelligence: Pixar Steve Jobs bought Pixar in 1986 for $5 million but he sold back to Disney for $7.5 billion in 2006. Pixar has grown their value through co-creation, or collective intelligence, since its acquisition. People who were ordinary gathered together to create synergy. 3. Discussion point What is the standard for calling collective intelligence? Is it also collective intelligence that just two to four people come together to solve the problem?

 1. Summary Wikipedia is a multilingual Internet encyclopedia that anyone can write freely. Like regular encyclopedias, Wikipedia should also try to convey objective information as much as possible, without anyone's opinion being strongly involved. In this regard, it is natural that Wikipedia refuses to censor. And I am strongly convinced that if Wikipedia had complied with all China, France and Russia's requests for censorship, it would have been a history book containing one's claims, not an Internet encyclopedia. 2. Interesting point https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/06/wikipedia-censorship-right-to-be-forgotten-ruling I was very surprised to see that Google had asked Wikipedia for censorship. Google restricted Wikipedia's links following the European court's decision to recognize the "right to be forgotten" and asked Wikipedia to delete five Internet links. It was interesting to see Wikipedia's "right to remember" and Google...

 1. Summary Naver intuitively shows where I can find information by connecting it with dictionaries, blogs, and external links when searching. However, Naver is too self-centered. Let's say I want to search Impressionist artists. Naver mainly shows information generated within it, such as people's descriptions of Impressionist artists through Naver blogs or the definition of Impressionism in Naver. This is a negative factor when someone wants to know various information. On the other hand, Google shows a vast amount of data. It shows Naver posting, related papers, and almost everything that contains the search keyword someone entered. It is good to look for a lot of information, but there are many data that need to be filtered out : unreliable data, too old-fashioned data, etc. But it would be great to use Google for research purposes if someone could filter these things out. 2. Interesting point Naver has been troubled by real-time search terms and biased news layout. In 2018,...

 1. Summary It would be great, but it would be difficult for all the information to be shared. In Korea, a few days ago, people involved in the development of new towns bought real estate in advance. Information related to real estate or investment is confidential, and people who know these things do not easily tell what they know to benefit. Like this, I think it is impossible to share all information, at least as long as the capitalist system persists.  2. Interesting point What would make a person special if all information could be shared? I think it would be application or creativity to collect and apply information. Also, memory that can accommodate all information will be very important. 3. Discussion point  Apart from sharing information, what do you think about sharing your work? I wonder if you take a copy-right stance or a copy-left stance on your creation.

 1. Summary Most Koreans use another platform 'Naver' when they have questions. Naver has a system called 'Knowledge iN', where if someone asks a question about something, other users who have seen the question can answer it. This system is well-known so Wikipedia is less popular in Korea. 2. Interesting point Wikipedia has evolved in a way that many people put footnotes on a topic. On the other hand, 'Knowledge iN' has grown up by collecting answers from people about questions. Both are good examples of using collective intelligence and it was interesting that they developed in a different way. 3. Discussion point  What should Wikipedia do to attract many users in Korea?

 1. Summary Mitch Resnick likened coding to writing in this video, urging young people to learn about coding. He thinks young people are accustomed to passive acceptance of digital culture, but they are weak at producing something using digital technology. He encouraged such people to learn how to use digital technology through his program 'Scratch.' 2. Interesting point The year this video was uploaded is 2012. When I saw this video, I couldn't help but admire this man's imagination and creativity. Now we can play VR games or use cameras with interactive elements. However, it surprised me that he came up with the idea of connecting reality with the virtual world nine years ago. 3. Discussion point As I said above, the speech was made in 2012. I think many people in this generation are still passive in accepting digital culture and it is not enough to actively utilize it. I wonder what other people think.

 1. Why do you think Wikipedia is becoming more accepted? Wikipedia is attractive because it does not require 'qualification' from anyone to use. Anyone can edit, add, and organize Wikipedia content. Because of this, the wrong content may be added. Wikipedia is also very wary of this. Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder, once said about this. 'The principle that we keep strong is that we get information from the most reliable sources. We try to avoid media and websites that cannot be qualified and have no history.' Like this, if someone brings true or more credible information, the fake information problem is easily solved and true information remains on Wikipedia. I think this information makes a lot of people come to Wikipedia. 2. Find out which non-governmental organizations use wikis : edit-a-thon in Korea I found that Ehwa University held an event called 'edit-a-thon.' This is an event that focuses on editing Wikipedia for a specific period of time. The event wa...

Why are you taking this class?  Skepticism about collective intelligence   Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia where collective intelligence has become a reality and its usefulness is beyond words. However, I always read Wikipedia articles carefully and sometimes I found there were some information that was different from what I originally knew. So I registered for this class to be able to identify which information in Wikipedia is reliable and to make sure that collective intelligence is really trustworthy.   What practical skills do you expect to gain from attending it? Wikipedia editing skills  As mentioned above, I sometimes see untrue information on Wikipedia(especially about Korean history). While taking this class, I want to improve Wikipedia editing skills to correct such errors. Also, there are fewer Wikipedia documents in Korea than in other countries, so I want to upload and edit useful information so that more people can use Wikipedia.