Blogging through Wikipedia (2021)

  What would be good to write on Wikipedia starts with a flashing idea. We can produce any article on Wikipedia. Just the desire to make a good article on Wikipedia can be difficult to write something that can be shared with various people. Therefore, we should be able to utilize various media articles, books, and papers, and finally look at 'me' objectively from the ideas of our friends or from the perspective of our friends. It's harder than you think to write things that are beneficial and refined and easy to see for millions of people using Wikipedia. However, when we finally finished uploading the article, we will be able to feel great worthwhile.

Wikipedia aims to create an encyclopedia that can contain all of people's knowledge fields and maintain its meaning. The English version of Wikipedia is said to produce and expand a huge amount of new articles every day. DYK aims to achieve the following objectives. Wikipedia continues to expand and always has to show new and improved content. Wikipedia has a wide range of information and must provide insight into the material. It is imperative that the facts be presented. It should also encourage readers to edit or begin writing. When various people gather to write a single article, various writings can be added or decreased within a single topic. Therefore, Wikipedia must have strict regulations to move toward existing goals without blurring the essence, and it must be able to provide an environment in which it can write freely. It was designed to capture all of the above. I think it's DYK.

  This article explains the function of Wikipedia's page grouping. Categories help readers find topics by looking at pages organized by titles. It also connects the relationship between each article and helps to understand the relationship between each article. Where the category is located (categories are usually at the bottom of the page in the article). This article explains in detail how subclassification takes place.

  Wikipedia is considered the best web service that many people can access with a single topic and different perspectives. In modern society, countless pieces of information are pouring out, and we are always at a crossroads where we have to find the truth and judge what is right or wrong. In the e nd, the truth can be found through refined information in the encyclopedia. The democratization of information is not information that is written by experts in power over a particular discourse and planted in countless people. Wikipedia is the information we produce and consume ourselves. Wikipedia is the place where I find the truth, prove the truth, and share certain ideas that I knew. The reason for Wikipedia's existence has always been clear, and the goals it pursues are the same, so I think Wikipedia is a necessary service for our lives in the future. Did you enjoy writing Wikipedia? Of course, you can answer yes to the question. This semester was my last college term. The fact that...

  T he Free Culture Movement is a social movement that supports the freedom to distribute and modify any content or media to creators without any reward or consent. This movement opposes overly restrictive copyright laws. Because I think excessive copyright laws hinder people's creativity. Therefore, some call it a culture that allows it. The first thing that came to mind when I first heard about the free culture movement was the copyleft. Just as the steps of vegetarianism are distinguished, there are also stages of this movement, which are distinguished by the strictness of compensation and distribution, and there are various arguments. It's a little difficult to give a clear answer to what's right and wrong, but I personally want to give a little more power to copyright law. I think protection for creators rather promotes creativity. I think creative things will be born that can change the world by what was not in the world, or what existed but needed to be supplemented....

  In 2006, Wikipedia and the real-life word Wikiality were announced. Colbert, who announced the content, said Wikipedia proves and creates the truth. Among what he said, "We can create a reality that we all agree on," was the most impressive. It is considered a reality if the 'fact' that someone has claimed is agreed by many. For example, he said that elephants tripled on elephant pages, which led to a false change in the actual Wikipedia page. Since then, Wikipedia has strictly defined writing anonymously. Wikipedia is called the democratization of knowledge. If it's something that many people can nod their heads, if it's something that's agreed upon by many people, it can be written on Wikipedia. And anyone who writes can access and check the content. In the democratization of knowledge, we must be careful not to share the wrong information among many people and focus on certain discourse as a collective concentration phenomenon. That is why more accura...

Now the way contents are produced has changed. It is also not surprising that people evaluate this collaboration. We have pursued the most common encyclopedia ever. I think Wikipedia is the reality of what I dreamed of. These advances in technology are always at the center of controversy. Those who fail to keep up with the development of technology will go on criticizing it to the end. Until the existence of smartphones, the range of contents we knew was limited. Therefore, when Wikipedia first appeared in the world, it would have grown up with people's doubts and doubts. In 2021, we look at smartphones and join various communities to create various me. Facing hundreds of events and encountering various opinions from the world. Whenever that happens, what we seek is the most neutral truth, universal opinion. Isn't Wikipedia the most convenient and easy for us to identify them? Anyone can write, anyone can edit. I think Wikipedia's values and values are, after all, the most ...

    1. Summary To pick two of Wikipedia's most influential people, two co-founders are chosen. Among them, "Sanger" worked on developing and managing Wikipedia rules. He held an important position at Wikipedia, but resigned. He alienated some Wikipedia people and focused on creating a professional-friendly encyclopedia. 2. Interesting Point Sanger couldn't afford to lose healthy contributors to Wikipedia with a few unnecessary haters. It then sanctioned abnormal users and interfered with their actions. It was different from what other co-founders thought. Rather, "Wales" did not interfere relatively, judged that Wikipedia could solve the problem on its own, and did not engage in any major problems. 3. Discussion Point It's amazing that Wikipedia believed it could solve small problems on its own. He pushed this belief to the end, and in conclusion he was right. I would have voted for Sanger's words if I were him.

   1. Summary There are clear norms in Wikipedia. You can find it on the Policies and Guidelines page. The page contains the following contents. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and must respect other contributors. It should not infringe on copyright, but should be free from prejudice. Finally, information based solely on reliable sources can be written. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a space for personal opinions, experiences, or arguments, all documents must provide verifiable references. Wikipedia also has a neutral view. It is not just a place to stand up for a single point of view, but a place to present a variety of meaningful points of view. 2. Interesting Point Wikipedia does not have one perspective. Various opinions and arguments on a single event or topic can all be contextualized. Of course, each must present a source of authority and trust. I think Wikipedia is the most neutral space in the space of one-sided websites. 3. Discussion Point Can Wikipedia be the...

  1. Summary   Nupidia is a website created by Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales. It existed for three years from 2000 and, unlike Wikipedia, was a site written by experts. CNET described the site as one of the greatest non-existent sites in history. Unlike Wikipedia, Nupidia had to undergo verification by experts in each field when it was posted. This ensures the accuracy of the content, but it becomes impossible to share information quickly. This is considered to have hindered Nupidia's growth. 2. Interesting Point I first learned about the existence of Nupidia. It was interesting to be able to share information from various fields on one page. In the early 2000s, it seems to be significant that there is a place to share and share various information in an era where information is less fast than it is now. 3. Discussion Point What is currently replacing Nupidia's role?

1. Summary   Wikipedia also allows editing of living people. As a result, biographies of people, biased writings about life, and defamation writings appear. On subjects that are not answered correctly, such as social science and culture, incorrect information is sometimes written or biased. As a result, Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable reference. In particular, researchers, teachers, and journalists also avoid using Wikipedia. Therefore, the references, citations and sources under Wikipedia are a valuable beginning for Wikipedia. This may be because Wikipedia allows anonymous editing and does not require an author's identity or email address. 2. Interesting Point It is interesting that anyone can write down his information about a living person, but on the other hand, there are scary parts. This is because you can gather information that exists in the world about someone and even parts that you don't want to disclose on your own can be published on Wikipedia. I thi...

    1. Summary The author of this book explains what points Wiki is made of and what values Wiki considers important. Wiki is the world's largest encyclopedia of collective intelligence and is open-minded. As people resolve conflicts in Wikipedia, the wiki system is becoming more and more robust. In addition, Wikipedia was described from an ethnographic perspective and focused on 'community'. 2. Interesting Point The function of Wiki seems to be more meaningful in sharing various views on one piece of information than in uploading it. It seems to be Wikipedia's role to organize fragmented information. 3. Discussion Point How can you distinguish between information that you can share with people and information that is not?

  1. Summary Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales were the most influential people in Wikipedia's history. Their 2001 job was to develop and operate rules for Wikipedia and the community. In this, different leadership existed. There were also disagreements about the location and role of Wikipedia's existence. In conclusion, Wikipedia should be able to operate without strong authority. 2. Interesting Point When many people are given the authority to operate, I think there should be accurate guidelines and rules. However, there will be side effects from rule to rule. For example, if you have to quote an article when you write, who should you leave it up to to to determine whether the article is biased or misinformation has been published? 3. Discussion Point Is there a guide to determine whether the rationale behind the numerous topics posted on Wikipedia is correct or wrong? If there is such a guide, in what way should it be managed continuously?

  1. Summary Wikipedia is free and open, but not everything is free. Wikipedia is not about examining the limitations of anarchism, but rather about creating an encyclopedia.  This will cause problems if anyone uses anonymity to post on Wikipedia about gossip that is on and off people's lips.  Although openness can be suggested as an advantage that anonymity brings, it poses a risk.  The phrase "Allow anyone to edit" needs to consider how much possibility it implies for those who want to exploit Wikipedia's strengths. 2. Interesting Point Leaving the responsibility for the freedom given by anonymity to the public puts a lot of pressure on Wikipedia. It was interesting to discuss how to regulate this to the right extent and whether to maintain Wikipedia's color. As a person who feels and accepts the darkness of the anonymity of the Internet more seriously, I felt that I needed to think about it. 3. Discussion Point I wonder if detailed regulations on problems aris...

1. Summary Wikipedia allows everyone on the planet to modify, reuse, and redistribute a great deal of knowledge in their language. Because we all trust the Internet, and we don't have high access to the Internet, we have to coordinate and resolve conflicts together. 2. Interesting point The world changes rapidly, and the vast amount of knowledge and information that arises from the ever-changing world is modified and supplemented. Maybe Wikipedia is the only dictionary that can see the past, present, and future of the same information. The squares that someone has seen in the past, the squares that I have seen in the present, and the squares that someone has seen in the future will all be different. I think Wikipedia's existence, full of information added and subtracted according to the changing point, is important. 3. Discussion point  What do you think is the basis for judging right or wrong when someone corrects or supplements a piece of information? You can judge and unders...

I'm taking the third class using Wikipedia. I was curious about collective intelligence when I watched the amount of information appearing in various numbers through Wikipedia. I hope the information I wrote at the end of the semester will be helpful to someone just as I enter the wiki to find something.