#4 Blog Assignment(Discuss the edits I have made to Wikipedia)

In the past week, I edited a lot of Wikipedia articles. So now I learn many things from Wikipedia. I am going to talk deleted my Wikipedia. From this deleted my Wikipedia, I learned 'copyright', 'image', 'copy and paste from site'.


<Summarize and link to my edit>
I published a Wikipedia about Oriental Brewery Company(AB Inbev) which I had worked for 6 months. I thought I could edit this article well. Recently, Oriental Brewery Company(AB Inbev) took over a The Hand Malt Brewing Company. In other words, OB expanded kinds of beers. I published that kind of information on Wikipedia with pictures and references. Like this

BELGIAN DUBBEL ㅡ 7.2 ABV/ IBU 21

The Hand and Malt Belgian style Dubbel is brewed with traditional Korean Yeot (candied sugar), creating a beer that is complex and rich that has a malty sweet up front flavors with a dry and warming finish. Look for flavors and aromas of dark fruits, caramel and spice.

Most of information came from the Hand Malt Brewing Company site. For this reason, my edited Wikipedia article is deleted. For now, I changed these sentence my own sentences. This is my edit link. Furthermore, you can check The Hand and Malt link


<Mention of any new, interesting or unusual items learned>
I published a picture, which I made and some writings, which came from the Hand Malt site. However, the Wikipedia thought my edit was violate to copyright. Then they deleted my edited Wikipedia. I needed to demand a right of the picture to Wikipedia and change company sentences to my own sentences. Wikipedia didn't want people to copy and paste sentences even I put a reference beside sentences.


<Identify at least one question, concern or discussion angle that is related to your edit that you would like to discuss further with me or others>
In my opinion, Sometimes, official sentences are way better than any other sentences to give some information to people. Then copy and paste sentences can make Wikipedia more smart and cool if references are clear. How do you guys think about?

Do you agree or disagree about copy and paste in Wikipedia if reference is indicated well.



Comments

  1. 이예원 (yewon Lee)March 29, 2019 at 7:58 AM

    I think the reference is important thing in Wikipedia. I agree to copy the reference if it is indicated well. because it is important that how to find the information. if people want to know more the information, they can find it from the reference.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discuss Reagle’s chapters 3-4

Discuss Reagle’s chapters 3-4 I read the Reagle's chapters 3-4. I find two opinion. One thing is how to collaborate people on Wikipedia. Other is how to make open community on Wikipedia. How to collaborate people on Wikipedia. In the case of the English Wikipedia, there is a collaborative culture that asks its participants to assume two postures: a stance of neutral point of view on matters of knowledge, and a stance of good faith toward one’s fellow contributors. I think that people know the mood that must keep the rule on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia's mood is light, people write the light writing. Other is how to make open community on Wikipedia. I remember the discussion that Why the Women is smaller that the men on Wikipedia. I've heard from others the reason that women don't use it much because the community isn't friendly to women. I think that we try to create Wikipedia to use all the people no matter that the sex. I think it's a process ...
Read more

Discuss Reagle's Chapter3-4

In  the Reagle  Chapter 3-4, the troll and the ignore rules were impressive.  Troll is the one who destroys teamwork and leads the team to ruin.  Trolls, which are negative characters, help develop Wikipedia. Wikipedia finds the wrong information generated by the troll. And the information is modified by others. In that process, it results in more information production. There is an outlaw, similar to a troll. The lawless ignores all regulations, including copyright and reference. Like Trolls, they help develop Wikipedia. They are free to edit because they are out of regulation. The free edited content is modified by others, including attaching references and deleting content that is caught in copyright issues. Wikipedia develops as it takes care of these types of people.
Read more

Discuss Reagle’s chapter 5

Discuss Reagle’s chapter 5 It is hard to understand this chapter. When I used the Wikipedia, I thought I don't need to group communication. Because the communication space is hidden, so I don't find it. I'm hard to find the communication space on Wikipedia. I think that the Wikipedia communication is not good at working in Korea. There are not many advisers on Korea Wikipedia. The Wiktionary definitions for consensus speak of “general agreement,” “without active opposition to the proposed course of action. I found it important for members to reach an agreement on Wikipedia. It's not an easy task, but I think it can produce a good results. So I think that's why Wikipedia exists. It can appear in a chat window, and go and talk to the other person's chat room. Perhaps it ends up as a personal versus personal matter, but I think that's also an agreement. If conversation does not take place, I don't think an agreement is reached either. Wiki...
Read more