#1 Wikipedia, what's different between dictionary?


1) Summary

Wiki is worldwide connecting online dictionary.
It is free, no matter who we are, where we live, we can link and use it in variety way(with the liberal copyright license). Other than that, It is free from other restrictions except for not having a device to connect the Internet.
The purpose of this web is gathering and sharing every cases and each meaning.




2) What did I learn and 3) Discussion Point

Sometimes I search something that I needed in online, I've seen this source written by '위키백과' so many times.
Before learning this lecture, I was looking and thinking 'It's same kind of dictionary maybe'. But now, I think it's a little bit different meaning between Wiki and common dictionary.

The most common point between Wiki and dictionary is defined things and had explanation in easy way.
But Wiki has more trivial detail so it's more closed to real world(exactly the present world). That's the decisive difference. Common points between real world, at the same time differences between dictionary is it said only the present things not in the past. In Wikipedia, one of the advantages is 'modify'. We can modify everything quickly in that world(Wiki). That means we can update some part or all definition written down at the past if we want. Put the changed things according with one's point of view, political structure, global warming, or whatever we think at this time.

Briefly, the common dictionary also be developed and had more definition about the things, nevertheless it's created very few of professional men compared with all the living people. There's endless cases(include incidents)in the world as the universe expands. More and more mass and be changed each meanings at this time.
What I want to said, Wiki, unlike the others, accepts and contains the natural phenomenon.


Here's two things I wonder. :)
First, each cases have all different meaning for each person. So if the updating things is not the common opinion, it is right to write down on Wiki without checking? (I think in Wiki, it doesn’t matter the 'exactly' accuracy thing already. There's a common thing and the other.)
Second, what is the power of growing wiki? Using the vast amount of information or Changing it for having the influence?

Comments

  1. 방민현 minhyunMarch 16, 2019 at 4:52 AM

    Minju, it's a good writing. You definitely summarized Wikipedia very clear. And the difference between ordinary dictionary and Wikipedia was a good point. I also think that Wikipedia is more than just a dictionary, because it has more information than a definition from a dictionary.

    And I thought your analogy between Wikipedia and Natural phenomenon was interesting. As the world gets closer to each other, we become more native to various information and consequently here comes Wikipedia. I think the timeliness was very good for Wikipedia to come up.

    And for the thing you wondered, I think Wikipedia needs more delicate checking system. Even if some systems are already applied to Wiki, since I had some reverts because of certain reasons, there was no system to assess about the edit's objectivity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. mjphomeMarch 17, 2019 at 7:03 PM

      Thank you for your positive assessment of writing, Minhyun.
      I also agree with you in part. Wiki certainly needs careful checks.
      But it doesn't have to be a system by a Wiki company or a single outside company. Such systems make Wiki's core, 'Collective Intelligence' more ambiguous. I felt the need for a standard of evaluation when I saw my writing being revised and wondered what was the standard and what was more objective. On the other hand, Wiki has probably expanded until now because there's no intervention. Wiki is more of a generality than a small number of experts. I think that's the advantage of Wiki's own. maybe more people's attention and participation is the system that you're talking about?

      Delete

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