What is the future of Wikipedia? Will it exist in 20 years? 50? 100?

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 knowledge, which is equivalent to chronic death. I think this has a lot to do with the non-profitability of Wikipedia. And the form of knowledge storage changes with the times. For example, most of the previous knowledge is from books, paper records to current data. Therefore, a more convenient and quick storage method will appear in the future. By then, Wikipedia can keep up with the times. This is also a challenge.
So I think how long Wikipedia can exist depends on how it solves these problems. At least for now, if it can absorb more editors and manage this knowledge reasonably.   Should it be a problem to survive for 50 years?

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