[10] What would make writing on Wikipedia easier for me?

<What would make writing on Wikipedia easier for me?>

  Editing Wikipedia was always difficult for me. But not with the UI or language something, the difference of the culture and people was kinda confusing. So as I found how collaborative place Wikipedia is with Reagle's chapter 3-4, I understand this with my brain, but still sometimes don't get it very well. 
  For example, I had edited a brand's core value, and then someone in Wikipedia just reverted it and the reason was 'it's not important.'. WOW. As I am majoring in advertising and public relations, I think a brand's core value is a thing that makes the brand alive. But, I understand. Some would not think it as I think. 
  And another example, I had edited an idol members reward for brand power and also cited an credible news link, but someone reverted it and the reason was 'it is not a credible source. please don't use it.' I thought Korean Brand Power investigation was a powerful and credible one but some thinks it's not. 
  But how could I make it easier for me? I think it's on my hand. I have to just expand my values wider. And maybe add some bit warm heart for other people. I came up with  some curious things during writing this. Do we have some replaced rules for patience and warm heart? Do we only have to be a kind person? 

Comments

  1. Kim ju hwan 김주환May 10, 2019 at 1:00 AM

    I am so sad that you edited carefully about your interests and did not correct them due to cultural differences, and I have had the same experience. If the modification was not applied simply because 'it was not important,' then I would have to ask the person, 'Why do you think so?' And I think it's necessary to say the right reasons, like, 'This is important. Because...' Unconditional patience and acceptance are unlikely to be good for your mental health.

    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