[14] What did I learn in this class?

<What did I learn in this class?>

  What did I learn in this class? Mainly and simply, Wikipedia. I have learned about Wikipedia's concept, culture, and how to edit and do other things in Wikipedia. Like a well constructed course cooking, I have learned Wiki A-Z. 
  First, I was confused about the thing I was going to learn. I thought I was going to learn about the essence about group learning but what I was googling was Wikipedia. Sure, now I understand about why I was googling it, but first it was kinda question mark. So we started. And from the beginning what is Wikipedia, what does it do, and how we can edit information in Wikipedia. The first two steps were difficult. First entering the Wiki world, second starting editing. It was a very unfamiliar thing. 
  Some adapting steps were held and when I started to be familiar in Wikipedia, then, I think I had something to learn. The most impressing thing I've learned was about the NPOV and the openness in Wikipedia. In the first sight Wikipedia seems to be an elite group system, but it isn't. Rather it is a place that supports openness and partial democracy. And there are some rules quite strict that makes Wikipedia system survive. The most surprising thing was Neutral Point Of View. This was more than I thought. Maybe I devalued the power and knowledge of people. I thought there would be some light rules, such like 'no slang.' or something. I really like it, of the point that Wiki people supports diversity and objectivity. 
  I think it was a good term to learn about Wikipedia A-Z. Would be a precious experience in my life. 

[discussion] Well, no special discussions this week. I rather would like to ask you! What did you learn in this class? 

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