Blogging through Wikipedia (2019)

I learned a lot through this class during one semester. I learned how to edit Wikipedia, knowledge of copyright, and a direct feeling of the influence of collective intelligence. I felt a lot about the place where collective intelligence occurs, Wikipedia, through article editing. We have seen the process of society developing further through collective intelligence in 2019. When I saw an article about the ever-present social phenomenon that others explained about it, I had mixed feelings. Through this class, I learned about collective intelligence and the influence of group intelligence. And I also learned some important things such as copyright.  I hope that Korea will also have more subscribers, creating more collective intelligence.

A free culture is a growing understanding among artists and audiences that people don't have to ask permission to copy, share and use each other's works. This definition of free culture follows the question Copyright.org. Why free culture matters?  That's all economic reasons. Creators like artists make money through copyright. But if the concept of such a copyright is lost, creators lose their means of making money.  How bad is it that you don't have ownership and respect for your creations? So free culture detracts the will to create from the creators. . A free culture should be established in a way that does not undermine and respects artists' creative will and does not lose their means of livelihood. Without a free culture, revisions to a work are removed and various creations are impossible to produce. Emulation is the mother of creation. Excessive regulations can interfere with creative activities. Maintaining the right line is the most important.

Writing a Wikipedia article was strange and hard for me.   In particular, I thought Wikipedia editing was complicated. Source code, copyright, photo attachment is difficult, and reference is hard to attach. There were three big things that helped me edit Wikipedia. Sandbox, help desk, Tutorial. Tutorials enabled us to become familiar with Wikipedia and edit Wikipedia, asking questions about things we don't know at our help desk. In particular, in making an article with a team project, he learned to make a Wikipedia article by making sandboxes and sharing opinions with the team members. Now I'm used to Wikipedia editing as I take pictures myself, attach photo files, and write over 100 articles.

In Wikipedia, a consensus is reached. A consensus is general agreement among a group of people. Consensus plays an important role in Wikipedia. It is important to harmonize various opinions on information. Most consensus are made through voting, but Wikipedia uses communication to interact.   All Wikipedia articles can be modified by everyone. Because there are various opinions, consensus is important. Communicate through Wikipedia articles and match the information in the articles. These editing methods are easy to capture a variety of perspectives and are good to hold a lot of information. "two heads are better than one." 

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.

There is another society in Internet space. It has been less than 30 years since Internet space became common.  In the case of Korea, civilization arose, and it has been 5,000 years since etiquette and culture began. By comparison, Internet etiquette has been around for less than 30 years. That is why Internet etiquette has not yet been established. It is an example of a cultural lag.   Systems and perceptions are not keeping up with the pace of change in technology. Internet citizens should have a good sense of citizenship. There are still cases of malicious use of the anonymity of the Internet. This is a case of citizens' awareness that is still insufficient on the Internet. They should also have sufficient responsibility in the Internet space, and should have an attitude of respect for their opponents. Don't do anything that hurts your opponent. You have to study to avoid harm. Copyrights often do harm to others without knowing that they are intentionally damaging them. The...

I think Wikipedia will exist in 20 years. No, I think Wikipedia will reach deeper into our lives. Especially in line with AI, IOT, and 5G, Wikipedia will evolve. Like Google Assistant, you will be able to share and learn knowledge in your daily life more easily. Also, using 5G, Wikipedia's knowledge will be able to be more detailed and vivid. Just as the use of photo files increases as cameras become common, I think Wikipedia will exist as a platform that delivers live information by using technologies such as 5G and VR. 50 years and 100 years later, the technology will evolve in step with it, and through collective intelligence, the accumulation of knowledge will expand faster and more.  I think it will be expanded further through integration with other SNS such as YouTube. YouTube also changed from one moment to another information search and knowledge generation platform I don't think such a combination of YouTube and Wikipedia is awkward at all.

Can Wikipedia disappear? My idea is that Wikipedia will not disappear. Even if the Wikipedia portal disappears, there will be a new Wikipedia that acts as Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a great influence on our society all over the world. It greatly increases the amount of information we have and facilitates the search for information we are looking for. Unlike the encyclopedia in the past, Wikipedia updates its information in real time and is updated to meet time changes. I think collective intelligence through Wikipedia is the human progress that has been made through the Internet revolution. In my opinion, Koreans do not use Wikipedia very much. Use other portals a lot. For example, Naver, NAMU WIKI, etc. But if you look at it in a big category, it also uses collective intelligence like Wikipedia. There are Naver intellectuals who get answers from other users. It is the same operating system as Wikipedia, but it is an information-optimized portal in Korea. But the problem with these two p...

Do you think Wikipedia is a reliable portal? Maybe it's right, or maybe it isn't. I think that unconditional trust in Wikipedia is dangerous. Maybe it's right, or maybe it isn't. I think that unconditional trust in Wikipedia is dangerous. Wikipedia can be written by experts in a particular field or by someone who has no knowledge of it. A stranger writes as if it were true with an attached reference that was not relevant. References also mostly bring newspaper articles. The newspaper article has also exploded over the past. This is because journalists, whose job is important, do not perform their roles properly. By re-spreading it again, the spread of false information is made. I've actually seen a lot of such cases while editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot use a person's subjective But sometimes subjective judgments are needed. Subjective judgments, such as assessments of dictators and content of war buffs, are needed. I think history is also a subjective judg...

Wikipedia is sensitive to copyright issues.  However, I learned in class that copyrights vary from country to country. We looked at how we deal with copyright between countries in the context of Panorama's freedom. There's a difference in copyright issues between countries, and I was also wondering how to run Wikipedia. As an example I posted, I edited the poets' poems to Wikipedia. The poems of the dead poets did not violate copyright issues, but a warning message came that they were caught in copyright problems if they posted the poems of a living person on Wikipedia. As a result, my post disappeared. My idea is that the whole world wants to unify the issue of copyright. If the copyright issue were to be unified worldwide, what would be the problem? Also, I thought that copyright is not objective and ambiguous. How can we deal sensibly with copyright?

summary. Wikipedia is a place where individuals can interact on the Internet. Wikipedia exerts collective intelligence through interactions between individuals. Like Wikipedia, it is the development of technology that allows us to exercise collective intelligence. Without the development of the Internet, Wikipedia would not have existed. As Smartphones become more popular and cameras become more popular, interaction through media has increased. Photographs and video data enhance credibility. So the development of technology gave birth to Wikipedia.It is not too much to say. Not only Wikipedia, but SNS such as Facebook and Instagram were born with the development of technology. But Facebook, unlike Wikipedia, spreads false news. Why are Wikipedia and Facebook growing in this different direction?

1.summary Wikipedia has a lot of information. Depending on language, the same information may not be available. Wikipedia is a typical type of collective intelligence utilization. But there is a barrier to language. I feel the barrier of language as a Korean. There is a lot of information that is not available in Wikipedia in Korea. Koreans use other portals to search information rather than Wikipedia. Other portals are not as reliable as Wikipedia.  That was uncomfortable for now, and while taking collective intelligence classes, I tried to expand Korea's influence by translating Korean information into English. I was careful not to miss out on my subject, and I used references to increase my credibility. Wikipedia, where the existence of information varies from language to language, needs to overcome language barriers.

Wikipedia will continue in the future. There is not a lot of collective intelligence that can give and receive very detailed information even among people in distant countries. In the future, there will be a lot of collective intelligence based on the Internet like Wikipedia, so that people will share information, participate and cooperate. However, Wikipedia will need to evolve as the times change. As the age changes, the society we live in will change, and the technology will also change. Therefore, Wikipedia should move toward the development of these changes, while retaining its essential identity.

As I listened to the lecture on collective intelligence for a semester, I learned a lot about the identity of Wikipedia. I also noticed that editing Wikipedia is not just writing, but editing in a variety of ways. I also think that Wikipedia is a form of collective intellect that is important in the present society, and I think that this kind of collective intelligence will be created in the future so that people can participate, share various knowledge and form a paradigm. Wikipedia is not just a site for sharing information. There are rules to be followed by participants, and there is courtesy. Wikipedia has detailed instructions for beginners on how to edit and use Wikipedia. I hope many people will join Wikipedia.

What did I learn in this course? I learned many things about Wikipedia in this course. I've used Wikipedia so far not for editing, but just to find the information I want. However, while taking this class, I was able to edit Wikipedia and add posts. In addition, I was able to communicate with people using Wikipedia, as well as add non-copyrighted photos to the right posts. Wikipedia, as I have learned in theory, is where communication betweem people is active. When I upload a post on Wikipedia, people can confirm it and then delete it if they find it inappropriate and send a corresponding message. I can supplement the feedback given by the other party and post more complete posts. Like this, Wikipedia editing has taught me many things.

I think Wikipedia will exist until the day the Earth falls. This is because many people use the Internet and smartphones more than books and dictionaries. The Internet and smartphones are different from encyclopedias in that users can always share information. An encyclopedia can only collect information, but Wikipedia can provide or collect information directly. Users who no longer want to be passive have become active. What's interesting is that collective intelligence on the Internet started with a Nupedia before Wikipedia, and now it's not going to go away. Human beings have always changed constantly to develop into better situations. Some people may wonder if Wikipedia will disappear, but  Nupedia  is very different from Wikipedia. Rather, Wikipedia will not disappear but will change into a more advanced form. What I want to ask you is what form Wikipedia can change with the development of AI.

What is the future of Wikipedia! Will it exist in 20 years? 50? 100? I think Wikipedia will be affected by SNS. I guess Wikipedia might follow Kakaotalk, Youtube and Facebook. Wikipedia works like Kakaotalk or wechat (Wikipedia can share information immediately). People will not wait information. Wikipedia will have video contents like Youtube. (Wikipedia can give information through Video). For now some people use Youtube for information. Wikipedia contents can be Video too. Wikipedia user can get alarm from interesting information like Facebook or Instagram. That’s what I guess about future of Wikipedia.

Just like the ever-changing knowledge, the future of Wikipedia is whether it can be upgraded quickly. One of the toughest tasks of Wikipedia is to find and retain item contributors, and there is information showing that the number of editors in the English version is gradually decreasing. One of the great things about Wikipedia when it was created was that people could see the updated version instantly; nowadays, any young person on Facebook can easily appreciate this excitement. At the same time, how volunteers allocate time online also brings more challenges to Wikipedia. Wikipedia also needs more writers in different fields. There are more males in the current editorial staff, and most of them come from rich countries. As a result, the scientific and technical reports on the website are quite comprehensive, and there are few reports on poor areas and social situations. Wikipedia also needs more readers, especially those from areas where information is scarce. Wikipedia is a...

What is the future of Wikipedia? Will it exist in 20 years? 50? 100?  Wikipedia must exist as long as it is in demand.  Many people search, use, process, and share information on the Internet.  It is the same principle that the act of buying books and making gossip with one's mouth came to modern times and only changed its form based on the Internet platform.  Our inherent desire to know new information will be the same after 10 years, 20 years, or 100 years. Of course the form can be different.  But as the Internet became available and more people were able to share information, the information we could share became wider and more. This will not change in the future and will rather expand. It's sad news that fewer people are joining Wikipedia, but if measures are taken to prevent this phenomenon and many people are back on the website and activate it, Wiki is an online encyclopedia that will never disappear.

Founded in 2001, Wikipedia has been around for almost 20 years and still has a good life. And it is still growing. I think this is because Wikipedia's founding philosophy is very good. All people in the world are welcome to edit it together. And there are no restrictions, you can upload any knowledge that meets the law. This way Wikipedia can absorb a large part of the world's knowledge and put them together. Like a huge encyclopedia. I think it's just about this. Wikipedia has been around for a long time. Because people must learn knowledge, they must also store knowledge. To facilitate the study for the next generation. Wikipedia has played this role very well. In this way, Wikipedia seems to survive forever. But I think there are still some problems and challenges waiting for Wikipedia to solve. For example, the editors of Wikipedia are falling in recent years. I think this is a very dangerous thing for Wikipedia. Because losing the editor is equivalent to losing knowle...

<What is the future of Wikipedia?>   I wrote it few weeks ago, similar theme, I think Wikipedia would exist at least a hundred years. Maybe someday, people would find a more special and efficient way to gather information and share with each other. But still there will be a maniac in Wikipedia, and they will help Wikipedia community to survive.    I saw movie ALADDIN yesterday. It seems to be very 'why in this moment?' but let me explain about the sudden exposure. Aladdin, I saw it by animation form when I was a child, and when it became blurry in my mind, it just came out to a real movie which is depicted by real human. On this point I figured out that if there are people who keeping wants a thing-demand- there would be supplies. Wikipedia also has a thick supporter line, and this creates demands and develop. And if Wikipedia reflect their thoughts and try to develop with the time, Wikipedia could survive at least a hundred years! 

What is the future of Wikipedia? Will it exist in 20 years? 50? 100? I think that the Wikipedia exists a long time when we don't count. But I think it will take different kind of views. First one is many people on Wikipedia. Many people mean that it join the person who don't watch or listen and so on. It means that Wikipedia for disabled person. I think they will join the Wikipedia editors. Maybe it's happening on Wikipedia. I think that it will be in an advanced form. Disabled person maybe uses on Wikipedia. But they don't be reader. They are writer and editor on the future. Second one is to translate language service on Wikipedia. We know that Wikipedia has transformed's service. But it is not to use the machine. It is made by person who can translate into other language. Computer is stupid. So people translate into other language. Of course google can translate the language service. But It can't translate the words on the image. I th...

I could learn a lot from this class of collective intelligence. Until I took the class, I didn't even know that I could edit Wikipedia myself. And countless Wikipedia articles were maintaining credibility and accuracy in the surveillance of countless people.   What's interesting is that the number of articles that can be edited on Wikipedia is still infinite. We can apply various effects whenever we edit a new Wikipedia. For example, I can quote pictures through wikicommon, use templates, quote articles or parts of literature, and add categories. In short, Wikipedia editing is the process of creating an encyclopedia. And finally I completed my Wikipedia project for 6.3 Resistance Movement(6.3시위). As it was a historic event of considerable importance in Korea, I wanted to convey information to many people. I don't know how proud I am! What I want to ask you is, will you continue to edit Wikipedia after this class? Of course, my answer is "Yes."

I learned too much, I never imagined how widespread and incredible was the collective intelligence in Wikipedia, when I was in high school I knew that Wikipedia was like an encyclopedia, but I really did not know how it worked to create the content. However, some years later I discovered that anyone could edit it, which discouraged me from continuing to use it, because I believed that if anyone could edit it, anyone could tell what they wanted, not always being true or neutral. Apart from that all of my teachers (from Mexico), prohibit the use of Wikipedia, so for many years I stopped using Wikipedia, until I decided to take this class. I was surprised to see how wrong it was, no doubt, the disinformation about how Wikipedia works is not good, I learn how it works and I fell in love, at first I was afraid to know that my contributions could be seen by thousands of people. Bearing that in mind at first I was very afraid of not doing a good job in my editions and I did not eve...

What did I learn in this course, which is collective intelligence I can't say a word to show up what did I learn in this course, which is collective intelligence. I mean, I studied a lot from this class. Before I took this class, I just thought this course was like small team project and Wikipedia was small web site. But it's totally wrong. I study and edit Wikipedia. Wikipedia works like world wide team project. It's not just small team project. Also, I realize that Wikipedia is the biggest encyclopedia. After I study this class, I can edit Wikipedia, post a picture, put a reference. In addition, I understand that copyright is important. These things make me help Wikipedia. In other words, I can share my knowledge to other people.

# What did I learn in this course? I learned what I learned from the lecture, so to speak, collective intelligence, just like the name of the lecture. When I first saw the keyword "collective intelligence," I thought it meant simple teamwork. However, seeing an online social media platform called Wikipedia made me feel new. It was impressive that the platform was not simply devoted to its own purpose, but also capable of taking the public interest. It's a strange pleasure when I edit Wikipedia information and see it successfully posted after censorship. But one thing that's disappointing is that he failed to make various edits. If I have edited 10 times, the number 8 seems to have added simple posting information. I am sorry that the professor did not use more of what he taught me. [Discussion] What kind of editing did you write a lot?

It was hard at first even though I had taken Wikipedia-writing classes before. Because I forgot many things. It felt like a fresh start, so at first I couldn't edit Wikipedia, and at one time I was blocked from editing by editing Wikipedia without its source. But I got used to it by editing a little bit. Editing was no longer blocked, and links were added. At first I didn't even know how to insert a link. But I got used to it. I wondered what kind of person was editing wikipedia. And I was surprised that many people edit wikipedia because it seemed difficult. But it was really fun to edit. Through this class I knew that sources were really important, so that Wikipedia's accuracy could be guaranteed.

In fact, this course was too hard for me in the beginning. Because i think it's impossible for me to edit Wikipedia.  I thought editing Wikipedia was something only great people could do. But as I learned Wikipedia's principles and various functions, I was able to edit them naturally. When I first edited Wikipedia, I added only the source and there was no content editing. I didn't have confidence in what I edited. But as I continued to edit, I could have confidence and I could see that editing was not difficult. In addition, when searching for information, I became aware of the importance of  NPOV and had the ability to select information. I got into the habit of checking if information is accurate. I learned a lot about Wikipedia's functions in class, but I think the most impressive thing for me is these two. : Confidence and NPOV These are two of the most important things in society as well as in Wikipedia.

I learned a lot from this course, mainly in these aspects. First of all, I learned how to edit in Wikipedia.I never thought I'd be able to edit the contents of Wikipedia alone before this course.I always think edits on wikipedia gonna be very complicated, and I don't have this capability, and I don't care about these things.But when I started editing, I found it wasn't exactly what I thought.The professor will teach us how to edit during class, and answer questions directly when we have questions that we don't understand.So we learned a lot of editing methods in many practical operations. Then I also learned a lot about society, culture and even science. Much of this knowledge comes from areas that I didn't care about before.In order to make more edits, I began to read a lot of entries on Wikipedia. In the process, I saw a lot of strange knowledge.Although I read it unintentionally, I have gained more knowledge about these areas. Finally, I also re...

<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 open...

What did I learn in this course? The thing that I remember is that how to edit on the Wikipedia.  I heard that Wikipedia is on the internet. People can fix and write on Wikipedia.  I have not published the article on Wikipedia until I joined this collective intelligent.  When I wrote the edit on Wiki, It was hard to published on this.  Because I was so scared that if I am wrong, Didn't I use this Wiki internet page? But I  practiced writing  and fix the edit. It is not easy at first.  I do it and make good edit.  I find the  Wikipedia  to look it different point of  views .  The interesting thing is that Wikipedia is  similar  like  democracy , but it seems like anarchism. And  it can look other of  views . It is hard to understand about meaning of the words, but I really  interested  that it can point to sociology.  Wikipedia is community that gather  all the  world people....

Can Wikipedia disappear? I don't think Wikipedia can go away. Because Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia written by an authoritative person, but by many people. It would be impossible for one person to work hard to get rid of Wikipedia. If you shut down Wikipedia itself, it will disappear. But I think there is a high possibility that other sites similar to Wikipedia will emerge again. The name of the site may not be Wikipedia, but that type of site will be steadily created. I don't think Wikipedia can disappear unless the user's participation is completely gone. Wikipedia is not just knowledge but interaction. It won't be easy to get rid of the information created by the interaction

Can Wikipedia disappear? My thoughts are not. Because Wikipedia is now helping many people. The technology of collective intelligence is very important in the present society, and Wikipedia is at the center. Through Wikipedia, many participants get a lot of information and can do neutral editing. It is also possible to have a neutral way of thinking through Wikipedia. Wikipedia can give you information that is not well known, and it can correct the incorrect information and lead you in the right direction. People who participate in Wikipedia can identify their presence and communicate with others. Because of these many advantages, Wikipedia will continue

# Can Wikipedia disappear? I thought it was fun when I saw the topic of this blog. When I thought about the disappearance of Wikipedia, which is not a personal blog, Facebook account, or even a common Instagram account, I thought it wouldn't go away unless it was a great genius hacker. (This is what I thought in the 21st century, June 1, 2019. I've already learned that many people use Wikipedia in lectures. If Wikipedia disappears, everyone will use collective intelligence to find and revive it. I think group intelligence on the Internet has already permeated offline and offline group intelligence has been achieved. So even if the Wikipedia online, was dissipated by the Wikipedia spirit of collective intelligence, not to go away simply because they won't go away. Discussion : Who do you think would be the most damaging if Wikipedia disappeared?

Definitely not, I think maybe the platform it can change it or modify it, but I really do not think it will disappear for multiple reasons. One of them is that it is a collective work in which thousands of people participate for a common and noble purpose; the sharing of knowledge. Which makes it very important for everyone because you have the sum of knowledge to just a few clicks, it really is something that helps thousands of people for different purposes, apart from being free, thanks to this thousands of people who can not pay books or others resources can access the information with the help of Wikipedia and all those who compose it. No doubt, I do not think it can disappear and less with so many Wikipedians who support it and if that should happen I'm sure it will be for a new alternative or because something really must have happened and that it got out of hand, but fervently I think it is impossible. -Garcia Guillen Ana Gabriela.

Can Wikipedia Disappear ? Wikipedia cannot be lost because it is an encyclopedia created by collective intelligence, not one person. If Wikipedia is a space created by one operator, the operator can eliminate Wikipedia by deleting all posts and shutting down the server. However, since Wikipedia is a space where countless people from numerous nationalities voluntarily added and edited information, it is impossible to delete Wikipedia unless all of these people delete all their contributions at the same time. As such, Wikipedia has too much information by too many people to disappear.   However, I think Wikipedia's servers could change a little bit in the future, with new features added or older features deleted.   What do you think? Do you think Wikipedia can disappear?

Can Wikipedia disappear? In the world, many people use Wikipedia. Wikipedia works 24 hours. Wikipedia helps in variety of life. Can Wikipedia disappear? I don't think so. This community will exist forever. The knowledge of Wikipedia is cited in various categories. These knowledge will be cited and cited. It means that Wikipedia will effect to most of communities. Then it won't  be disappeared.

  I don't think Wikipedia will disappear, although it has many problems.   Wikipedia's advantages are why people use it. For example, Wikipedia is run by a non-profit organization, and the source of funding for website maintenance is crowdsourcing and donation. It also controls entries that are commercially propaganda-oriented. So there will be no advertisements in Wikipedia, and it can also guarantee fairness and objectivity to a certain extent. This is a difficult point for other network encyclopedias, and Wikipedia has absolute advantages in this respect.   At the same time, Wikipedia is also popular because of its many entries and comprehensive explanations, and each entry has different language explanations, covering almost all disciplines, making it easy for people around the world to see, which makes many professionals more dependent on Wikipedia.   And from my experience, even those who are new to Wikipedia can make their own contributions here, which ...

Can Wikipedia disappear? No, never. I think Wikipedia is another category of Google. In the feature of searching to find out what information you want to know. Wikipedia's information is vast. It's "Wiki" that appears at the top of Naver and Google when I'm doing my assignments, in class, to get to know the concepts I don't know and the various perspectives on them. Wiki's strength is both information accumulated in the past and scalability, like a black hole still in progress. I don't think it's ever be deleted But in order for it to develop further, it needs to bring more people together. More people need to modify and add information through Wiki. What is the way to do that? We have to think about it.