Summary My Wkipedia Editing (신기은 Shin gieun)

Summary My Wikipedia Editing

It took me five hours to complete the Wikipedia assignment.
Because I thought about Wikipedia too heavy and difficult.

 What is not Wikipedia!
Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
Wikipedia is not a publisher of eloquent ideas.
Wikipedia is not a soap box or promotion
Wikipedia is not a mirror or storage of links, images, or media files.
Wikipedia is not a blog, a web-space provider, a social network, or a commemorative site.

Notice
It is remarkable to have his own Wikipedia article on a subject.
generally in the limelight of the world
substantial coverage
Secondary Source-No Original Study
Multiple sources that are trusted and verifiable

It was really difficult to pay attention to the above contents.Mostly I edited in areas that I was interested in.

This is a picture I took myself. At first, I was taking pictures of the company's products, and I was worried that it might look like a promotion.I uploaded it thinking that there would be no problem. What do you think?Sadly, what's wrong with the picture I posted for the first time, not the original image, was grayed out at the bottom.So I tried to upload the photo I uploaded again.But it was recognized as a copy, so it was unmodified. A new knowledge was gained through failure. In addition, I tried to edit Park Ji-sung.
Ji-sung.Park wore the uniform at 2002 world cup. (Of course, I took this myself.)When I tried to uproad it, The company prevented me from uploading my files to a unreliable image. It was amazing!! How to filter out my photos in less than three seconds if my photo unreliable!! So I couldn't upload this either.

I found it difficult to edit these three issues (promotion, copyright, and reliability).

Have you ever had such a difficult time like me?

Comments

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