#2 My First Edits (Byeori Kim)

 Wikipedia is a site where information is edited and added by ordinary people. Until I heard collective intelligence, Wikipedia was one of my search tools. As I was in a position to edit the information myself, a lot of concerns were raised. The biggest concern was the concern that many people would see the information I edit. However, if the information I added is incorrect, or if there is an error in the reference books, it will be harmful to those who use it. So there was caution in my first edit.


 My first editing was to add information about  'Naver.' Naver is the most popular search site in Korea and is very familiar to Koreans. When I looked up Naver in the English version of Wekipedia, I found a lot of information about Naver from its history to its services. I searched for NAver in Korean version of Wikipedia to think about what information I could add. As a result, the Korean Wikipedia has a 'critic point about Naver' that is not found in the English version of Wikipedia. So, I added a new contents called 'Criticism' to the English Wikipedia, and I added information by referring to the Korean version of Wekipedia.


To  add information to Wikipedia, I first entered the information I want to add in the document in Korean and then translated into English. But there was one problem. The translation was completed, but the editing was not completeed because they did not know how to add the reference. Fortunately, Peter taught me how to add a reference in class on Friday so I could solve this problem.

There were some difficulties in editing my first Wikipedia, but I am proud to think that people read and use the information I added. In addition, from the editor's point of adding information rather than just using Wikipedia, I found new information about Wikipedia.

Here is my discussion:
Wikipedia is a service that provides information through the editing and addition of ordinary people. Of course, the reference is written on Wikipedia, but we can't trust this information 100 percent because not everyone who adds it to Wikipedia is an expert. So can we use information from Wikipedia for academic purposes?





Comments

  1. 이예원 (yewon Lee)March 21, 2019 at 6:11 AM

    I think we can trust this information about 50 percent. (maybe not...) but I trust Wiki strong point that fix the wrong information. I trust Wiki users find the wrong information and fix them.

    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