Blogging through Wikipedia (2021)

 Q1. What did you learn from editing Wikipedia? At first, I was worried a lot. The fact that it touches the contents of an encyclopedia that anyone in the world can see has come as a great burden to me. I don't know what other countries will be like, but there is a saying in Korea that 'starts are half done.' For the first time, I revised an article that many people could see. After doing it, I thought that other people could learn something through the article I revised. And even if I edited it wrong, it could be corrected by someone. In the meantime, I thought that the contents of the article could be taken a step closer to quality information. With these thoughts, after I finished editing the article, I was more excited than worried. I think the biggest thing I learned while editing Wikipedia was 'confidence'. Wikipedia is not a concept like a one-time assignment. Users can receive various feedback and generate good quality articles in the process. It took me a l...

 Summary DYK is a feature that introduces the lesser known of Wikipedia's new additions. DYK presents new articles or information to users on Wikipedia, allowing users to know a wide range of topics and facts. The main purpose is to provide new sources for people and users contributing to Wikipedia's articles, giving them the power to recreate other information. It is also DYK's purpose to disseminate new and improved information to users. That's why Wikipedia doesn't have to have the best quality. You can think of it as a generic clutter. DYK consists of Wikipedia's "hooks". The word "hooks" is an interesting fact derived from the latest Wikipedia content. DYK only applies to articles that have achieved one of the following within seven days: The first condition is creation. Secondly, it should be expanded at least five times. The third should be promoted to good knighthood. There are more than three above, but only one of those conditions n...

Summary  Category is one of the lists for dividing topics. The principles of categories should be directed in a way that helps when someone reads the article. Therefore, Wikipedia's category system makes it easier for users to find information, which is the purpose of the Wikipedia category. All articles should be in at least one category. And one of Wikipedia's rules is to have a neutral view. Wikipedia's category features must also adhere to these rules. In addition, Wikipedia's characteristics, which require reliable information, are evident in categories. It is good to secure a basis for whether the category is correct. Interesting point At first I thought the system of categories was too obvious. The first internet dictionary I have encountered is Namuwiki. When I looked through NamuWiki and others from time to time, I felt it was natural because there were category items. I read the article there and get the information I wanted. It does not end there. I get more ...

Q. What is “quality” for our societies?   Quality is a very important factor in our society. I don't know what other countries will be like, but in Korea, the phrase "quality is more important than quantity" is very famous. A case in point is the business of food. The quantitative aspects of companies that sell food and desserts cannot be ignored. However, most people these days do not eat only to solve hunger. Quality aspects such as the taste of food or dessert and freshness are the most important. No matter how shabby the building is, if the food tastes good, it will soon go viral and be recognized as a good restaurant. Quality is very important not only in restaurants but also in various areas. For example, even if a soccer player is good at other things that are not related to soccer, I think it is most important to support his or her main job, soccer skills. Not only soccer players, but singers as well. These days, their appearance is conveyed to people through vari...

 Q. Is quality subjective or objective? I think the quality of the image is a very subjective factor. I think the most important criterion for Wikipedia's article is to determine whether the image has been used appropriately for the topic of the article. I would like to take an example of a movie in this regard. There is a movie called 'Koulechove effect'. This means that the scene of the movie can be interpreted differently depending on the context. Most of the images on Wikipedia will be related to the content of the article. People can relate to the content of the article and figure out if the image is used correctly. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia in which everyone in the world participates regardless of class, occupation, or age. Therefore, there are many different ways of thinking and values. In the end, each person will have a different idea of whether the image is properly used. I think the quality of the image is really subjective. However, images are an imp...

Q. Can we think of some products or industries that have been disrupted by the internet?   I've been exposed to the Internet since I was young. I think I'm a generation who experienced a time when analog and digital were properly changed. So I think my generation could feel the change in life after the activation of the Internet. The biggest difference I felt was the ratings and popularity of animation on TV. When I was in elementary school, smartphones were not even released, and not many friends had cell phones. So many friends my age, including myself, spent a lot of time watching television. Among them, I was very interested in animation. And comic books that are based on animation were also very popular. However, the development of the Internet has been rapid since the 2010s. The development of the Internet led to the development of smartphones, which led to the activation of YouTube. So now we can watch the animation that we want at the time we want on YouTube. You can fi...

Q. Do you think wikipedia is reliable? why or why not?   As mentioned in Week 8 blogging, Wikipedia is too autonomous. Since any person can edit information, there can definitely be people who damage articles with malicious intentions, and even those who have no malicious intentions can deliver the wrong information. However, Wikipedia's system saw through those points and set out various rules. Wikipedia's rules require users to have a neutral perspective and to bring reliable sources. As a result, I believe Wikipedia's information has secured its own credibility. However, I don't think there is anything absolute in the world, not just Wikipedia. In the end, it is a space where people with different ideas and values work together. Therefore, not only those who edit information should abide by the rules, but those who accept information should also abide by the rules. For example, if you want to get information from Wikipedia, you'll need to make sure that it comes ...

Q. Why Wikipedia is the most efficient of all attempts to collect and organize? I think the biggest reason why Wikipedia has become the most efficient means of collection and organization is that people around the world can participate in Wikipedia regardless of where they live or what social status they have. However, if the site is too free to use, various misinformation or errors can be introduced. However, Wikipedia's system is not that easy. Wikipedia requires users to have a neutral view. And there is a rule that every work on Wikipedia must be confirmed to be true by reliable sources. Wikipedia's systematic features, which are neither too strict nor too autonomous, make collection and composition efficient. And as time goes by, the number of people carrying smartphones is increasing. The days of editing Wikipedia and accessing information only on computers are over. Now, Wikipedia information can be easily edited and viewed with a light cell phone, without having to carr...

 1. What do you find difficult? Since I have been receiving information all my life, it was awkward to be the role of providing information. It was burdensome for me to edit a document that many people saw. I have sometimes read some articles about topics I am interested in on Korean encyclopedia sites such as Namuwiki. However, I have only heard the name of Wikipedia. Since I had never actually entered to receive information, it was so unfamiliar to provide information through editing. I was worried that subjective opinions might be involved. And the range of things to choose on the subject was so wide that it was difficult to decide on one thing. 2. What do you find enjoyable? I said it was burdensome that a lot of people could see what I edited. However, after writing, I felt proud that many people saw my edits. If it's information that people don't see, it's because the record I edited on Wikipedia is just a diary. It would be most important to provide accurate and re...

 summary The book illustrates Wikipedia's functionality, systematic characteristics, and growth over eight chapters. The most important of all is the cooperation, manners and mindset of editors, called good faith collaboration. This book does not just contain a one-dimensional explanation of Wikipedia as a program, but rather explains psychological characteristics in comparison to situations in which people actually communicate. My opinion Wikipedia works well even though there are few separate legal regulations. People's intelligence gathers and it soon becomes the driving force behind Wikipedia. That's why Wikipedia seems to have a system that fits the class of collective intelligence. Wikipedia is one of the most objective sites to convey information, but in the end, people with different ideas and values were working together, so I thought that the subjective position would inevitably be involved. However, we find that Wikipedia's systems make information quite obje...

 summary The Longtail Law is a theory related to the fact that Wikipedia has a large number of users but only a small number of people working hard. Wikipedia's contribution to editing is almost ten thousand people. Wikipedia has a lot of users, but we can see that there are fewer real users than we thought. And the percentage of users varies significantly depending on age, gender, and nationality. Men use Wikipedia much more than women, and most Wikipedia is from North America or Europe, but the United States itself accounts for only 20% of editors. And only about 500 English Wikipedia editors are known to speak Korean as their first language. Q. Who do you think edits wikipeida? the young, the old, male, female, Americans, Koreans...? The summary above shows the conclusion in the end, but when I first saw this question, I thought it would be the contribution of experts such as college students, graduate students, and doctors. Gender differences were not likely to be that big. And...

 summary Wikipedia articles are hierarchical and all are written in an equal state. And because all changes are saved, wiki can be quickly recovered even if maliciously edited. That's why, theoretically, it's harder to break the page. There are several theories related to this, one of which is the theory of broken windows. This theory means that maintaining a well-organized urban environment can prevent further vandalism or crime. The second theory is that our behavior is influenced by four forces. The four forces are markets, laws, norms, and architecture. Q. How important are contributions of a single individual in the sea of "collective intelligence"? In the first place, I think the meaning of the word collective intelligence is also intelligence created by individual efforts. When you do a task or solve any problem, you come to a conclusion more quickly if you do it together than if you do it alone. Many people have completely different values and ways of thinking...

  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...