Blogging through Wikipedia (2021)

 Summary This is a function that recommends new content. It applies a set of criteria to users of Wikipedia to deliver new information. Wikipedia's diversity of information can be emphasized by sharing information that is not found on the main page. Interesting point I think these features are the reason why Wikipedia is more interesting to users. It is a function that encourages users to participate in continuing to expand and improve Wikipedia. Looking at the new information, users will be amazed at the diversity and will be more attracted to Wikipedia.

Summary  This is a description of the use of Wikipedia's classification function. Only when categories are clearly distinguished can I find the information I want faster and more accurately, and the category function allows me to see the information in the field I want to find at once and helps me search. Interesting point Setting up categories enables more efficient management of information. Category classification allows people to identify the areas that they are most interested in and mainly what categories of information they want. In other words, it is convenient for users to use, but easy for providers to manage. This is because data can be collected and used as big data.

  I think the quality of our lives is the level of consciousness. This is because the quality of life varies depending on what level of food, clothing, and shelter people enjoy. I think that if people enjoy food, clothing, and shelter to the satisfaction level, satisfaction naturally increases and other indicators rise accordingly. For example, there will be human rights. People don't live off food, clothing and shelter. Human rights must be guaranteed to be said to live as rain. As an extreme example, food, clothing, and shelter are guaranteed, but I think life without human rights is no different from livestock. I think democracy is necessary, just like these human rights. This is because I think I can live an independent life only when I have the opportunity to speak my mind.

I think quality can be subjective or objective. The results will vary depending on what criteria the quality is evaluated on. Products measured with clear criteria will be objectively scored for quality. But it's the people who set the bar that evaluate it. For example, if a snack is made based on strict standards, it still maintains objective quality, but in an individual's view, it can taste worse or less than it used to be. In this case, it can be seen as a subjective assessment. Like this, I think quality depends on what criteria you evaluate.

  The development of the Internet has changed everything. Our lives are not out of it either. Our lives now are irreparable to the Internet. If you want to look at a map on the street, you can use the Internet, find out the necessary information on the spot, and let you know the relevant information in addition to the necessary information. This development of the Internet has broken down the dam of information. As anyone has access to information, information that was monopolized only by existing intellectuals has been released to anyone. Currently, we can communicate with anyone in the world through the Internet and exchange information. However, as the development of the Internet accelerates, people's level of consciousness does not keep up with technological advances, and the Internet does not work in a good sense. Also, the elderly and the poorest who do not have easy access to the Internet still have difficulty accessing information. The development of the Internet has brough...

  Wikipedia obviously left a lot to users to collect huge amounts of information, but distortions of information inevitably emerged because anyone could participate. In particular, there have been many cases of political abuse. Wikipedia in Korea often fills in wrong information according to its political orientation. Failure to improve these areas will reduce the reliability of Wikipedia over time, forcing users to naturally decline. In other words, Wikipedia is reliable in some areas but unreliable in some areas.

The difficult: The difficulty was whether my edits were correct. So far, I've only searched and used information, but if the information I'm correcting is wrong, isn't it because of me? Am I authorized to correct this? The enjoyable: As I revise this information, other people will gain knowledge from this revised information. It made me think that I gave them knowledge. I think I enjoyed translating and collecting information because of this thought.