Blogging through Wikipedia (2020)

A Globe in Accord Wikipedia is available to everyone in the world. Thus, Wikipedia's logo is an incomplete shape of a world puzzle and the pieces represent different languages. The first of Wikipedia's success factors is its focus on technology. Technology played an important role in cooperation and the techniques to cooperate with network technology gave people openness and accessibility. This has increased people's responsibility and promoted socialization with new people. Also, functions such as change documents, discussions, and adding tools are so easy that I think everyone, including myself, can edit them. And on the discussion page, people actively share their knowledge and opinions. I think strong cooperation has been achieved because Wikipedia's editing techniques are easy to access. But what other factors have Wikipedia been able to do with collective intelligence besides these technologies?

Encyclopedic Anxiety Wikipedia has caused social unrest. Wikipedia is a place where discussions are activated because anyone can edit and collaborate. Much as reference works might inspire passionate dedication in their contributors, they also, seemingly, can inspire passionate disparagement.    Wikipedia can also be authoritative. There are elements to this in the arguments about Wikipedia, particularly over the way it is produced. Describing how knowledge is constituted can be difficult, but one can identify three ways for how we might think of knowledge production throughout history . First, you should know that an encyclopedia with little contact with people is useless. Second, the production of reference work eventually surpassed everyone's ability. Finally, there is Wikipedia and other open content. In earlier chapters I explore how this community and its culture facilitate the production of an encyclopedia Reference works can prompt and embody currents of social ...

What I learned from collective intelligence in practice is mostly that in our recent decades our society has developed from a fairly homogenous, orderly and stable society, to a society with enormous variety and diversity. During these classes I know now that introduction to sociology refers to how people develop social and emotional skills across their lifecycles. It also focusses on the need to put people first, which is necessary for our society, and for the groups of people who are part of it. This makes me realize that our world is constantly changing because of sociology Furthermore, working with Wikipedia was a challenging project. I discovered that Wikipedia made a historical evolution in our society. I would have never thought that Wikipedia would be the biggest web research of all time. It has now become the very best web searching in an ethics of our economy and society. But Wikipedia is an online web search, which is caused by technology. What I’ve also learned more about ...

The book is dealing with the interested of the cultural values shared by a community who volunteer working on projects and pursuing a clearly define goal. It involves a very dynamic process of social interaction to a bigger and smaller tensions and contradictions within the community. When the community is open as is the case with the Wikipedia creators, this social complexity is increasing with every new member, like me. On the other hand, many publications on this subject are rather superficial, not for the lack of effort, but for the difficulty of approaching the subject of study and the data that any research finds in this case. However, the author of this book proved that he is capable of overcoming all the indicated difficulties. The book does not simplify the findings and re-creates the complexity of human relations, whether individual or group, involved in an ambitious project as Wikipedia. I was quite intrigued that many findings about the collaborative culture of Wikiped...

Summary Wikipedia is a puzzle that fits people together. Puzzle puzzle with people all over the world causes many problems. Non-neutral perspectives on information, indiscriminate abuse of information and conflicts among people in providing information. This is a dangerous problem because of the nature of the informative encyclopedia. In order to make up for this, Wikipedia presented various efforts. Solving through the development of technology, mediating through unauthoritative managers, communicating among people, providing diverse perspectives of information, but the most effective effort was Wikipedia itself. We solved the problem through strong collaboration. People of pure purpose solved the problem on their own, and achieved successful results. Wikipedia is an innovative model that has emerged within the capitalist system and an exemplary model for everyone to choose from. People should be recommended a cooperative system that begins with good faith, not a competitive system...

1. Summary Chapter 7 criticizes some of the problems Wikipedia faces. The history of Wikipedia's bibliography deals with various stories of prejudice. We should not be extremely progressive or extremely conservative. Collaboration in Wikipedia is not necessarily good. Of course, it's not necessarily bad either. It is not surprising to question whether it can be improved. Wikipedia will be used not only as a reference but also as a study of how knowledge is organized and competitive. Chapter 8 tells the story of the Earth of the Convention. Wikipedia's logo is a globe of puzzles. Puzzle pieces mean different languages, and broken globe means an imperfect world. Wikipedia has always been a puzzle and each individual has a meaning of matching it. Therefore, it is called the zone of agreement. 2. Interesting Point We had time to take a closer look at the Wikipedia logo. It was more interesting than I thought to find out what the puzzle meant. The meaning of bringing together p...

Conclusion: "A Globe in Accord“ Wikipedia was able to develop this way because it had the power of cooperation. People gather in good faith and try to complete a puzzle together in a neutral manner. In this process, you may sometimes fail or succeed, but in itself you provide a valuable experience. As society is changing rapidly, creating new values through collaboration with multiple people will be of greater help than the role of a fixed dictionary. Once again, the most important value of Wikipedia was collaboration. Some people left because of some of Wikipedia's instability, but in the end, the universally desired goal was the form of Wikipedia. Should we come up with a more advanced form than Wikipedia, or should we complement it?

Encyclopedic Anxiety Wikipedia is open to anyone around the world and has access to this wide range of resources in an affordable, portable format. Through this high accessibility, I hoped to bring about greater agreements from all over the world. Wiki literally offered extreme freedom. But this freedom causes anxiety and reflects concerns about authority. Harsh, expertise, and authority retain their power on the Web. The developing media can also be a tool to amplify the spread of an individual's expertise whenever it is discovered. Of course, the qualifications granted to those without authority sometimes cause anxiety due to grounds uncertainty. I think this pointed out the shortcomings Wikipedia has. Which do we prefer, then, the authority's legitimate words or the freedom of all individuals' autonomy or expression?

The Benevolent Dictator   I wondered why the title of this chapter was "The Benevolent Dictator." Contradictions were felt  between the two words "Benevolent" and "dictator."   However, after reading this chapter, questions were answered. In this chapter, the term "dictator" continues to be used to describe leadership behavior from the decision making process of a group. Wikipedia is a voluntary effort, with the exception of most Wikimedia Foundation staff, with little room for coercion or practical compensation. Therefore, Wikipedia needs a manager with strong leadership because it has a variety of people and conflicts can arise. In Wikipedia, administrators can quickly prevent and intervene in malicious editing. It can also effectively mediate or resolve disputes. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and can give their own opinions, so there is a lot of discussion, which cannot always be peaceful.  Therefore, I felt the need for a dic...

The Challenges of Consensus Wikipedia has established the Arbitration Committee to reach consensus. This is a skilled user panel that exists to seek a binding solution to the Wikipedia dispute that could not be resolved by a joint discussion, manager or arbitration. Requirements of Consensus are inclusive (“as many stakeholders as possible”), participatory (“actively solicit the input and participation of all”), cooperative (“reach the best possible decision for the group and all of its members”), egalitarian (“equal input” with the “opportunity to table, amend and veto or ‘block’ proposals”), and solution-oriented (“emphasize common agreement over differences”). Agreements are not about quickly calculating "yes" or "no," but about reaching the best possible solution. Of course, an agreement does not mean unanimous. The progress and outcome of the agreement are rarely guaranteed, but focus on the potential benefits of deliberation rather than the speed of t...

1) summary We justify and rationalize mistakes. This is why when Wikipedia vegan to experience its first serious Growing Pains Walls collated for a "cult of co-operation" unlike the "culture of culture in engineering in Uset." You can further adjust which documents, discussion pages, templates, and automated tools you can access. However, while technology is important, it is enough. Despite the Wikipedia dust, many projects have failed. This is why the question of "How is something like Wiki Fidia possible?" leads me to the question of "How can you understand the collaborative culture of Wiki Fidia. People understand Wiki as a buzzword, suggesting that they can really change business, government, or anything like magic. Observing the exaggerated expressions of these technologies, some critics ask back what happens to individual differences and social ties. People who left Wikipedia start afresh on another Wikipedia as part of its legacy. In the most ...

Summary There are not always agreements in Wikipedia because it is run together by many people. And collaborative things don't always have accuracy in itself. In my case alone, there are always people who oppose and reject what I do alone and what I suggest. In addition, it is sure that there are more denial by critics when running Wikipedia since more than thousands of people participate and make the 'Wikipedia world' together. Not only Wikipedia, but every community and everything in the world can not always be agreed. There are always opposing and rejecting opinions. So, one of the best ways that Wikipedia can develop further is to humbly accept the denials and consider those negative opinions. Doing so would make it a better and even more developed Wikipedia. Learned As I thought, Wikipedia is an openness encyclopedia that anyone can participate in, so there are many opinions and many of them refuse Wikipedia's. I think  It can't be helped. . But I think W...

1) summary Open, civil, equality and beliefs are concepts encountered in the pursuit of a universal encyclopedia. Wikipedia, like other open content communities, is largely voluntary. And there is little room for coercion or practical compensation. However, community leaders often have paradoxical uses of titles like unofficial dictators.  They consequently affect the direction of community culture. Moreover, this type of leadership often works within a mixed ruling model of meritocracy, autocratic (the role of the decision maker or advocate of the last means), anarchist (agreement), and sometimes democratic (voting). The two most influential people in Wikipedia's history are co-founders Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales. In organizational culture and leadership, EdgarSchein identifies how such leaders embed and communicate culture, including "How leaders respond to critical events and organizational crises." Unlike other Wikipedia and other leaders in Wikipedia, Wales has ne...

A Globe in Accord As I said in my past blog post, we often can see that small groups argue with the others. I think because of the different thoughts, but still they call as ‘Nazis’ after all argument. A large group has a problem of accord. The rules, such as ‘Don’t make noise’, are not so helpful, and it even makes the community to get a weakness, so Wiki tried to focus on ‘technology’. In Wiki, people have their sandbox.  They can update any document or roll back it. They open a discussion page and share the knowledge and ideas about a document. They do not argue, but still talk to each other. It makes people more collective. And this is what I think interesting; technology helps people cooperate and be collective. It is still difficult to say every wikipedian can edit Wiki document easily (for visually Impaired, it is hard to access the internet and edit), but it is true that people can join and read the encyclopedia on the web more than the past. I hav...

1. Summary We communicate by creating an online encyclopedia called Wikipedia with people around the world. In the process, they sometimes have conflicts with people with different opinions.  But the essence of Wikipedia can be said to be cooperation. Wales also wanted to emphasize a culture of cooperation. In order to create an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, it is more important that humans can work together than knowledge. This can be said to be possible due to the development of technology.  In order to use Wikipedia, what students need to learn is not the amount of conflict, but the sharing and cooperation that takes place in the community. This requires a focus on community culture. Wikipedia has the reflective nature of an open content community. Communities are also always changing, and change is inevitable, but my efforts are contained in that time. 2. Interesting point As I took this class and wrote Wikipedia documents, I thought it was amazing that people who...

1.Summary When talking about Wikipedia's success, sometimes it focuses on  Technology.  Technology can inspire the vision of a universal encyclopedia and enable people to socialize by increasing networking technology, cooperative technology, openness and accessibility. Knowledge donors were also able to communicate and provide information gradually. But the biggest reason Wikipedia was because of its strong cooperation. In order to understand Wikipedia, it is necessary to focus on communities and cultures. Certain cultures and values promote cooperation within Wikipedia. Also, like communities, Wikipedia changes. 2.Interesting Point How was Wikipedia's strong cooperation possible? Is it because of Wikipedia's system or because of its information contributors? I thought there was strong cooperation because contributors created information about specific articles together. They work together to make articles, forming their own culture and promoting Wikipedia's co...

Over time, the average quality of Wikipedia articles rises, but Wikipedians’ standards rise more quickly. I totally agree that this sentence. Wikipedia, and the collaborative way in which it is produced, is at the center of a heated debate. Much as reference works might inspire passionate dedication in their contributors, they also, seemingly, can inspire passionate disparagement. It should be emphasized that the "free" in Free Encylopedia mainly refers to two things: freedom of copyright and free of charge.In Europe and the US, copyright is strictly enforced, and Wikipedia's popular left model enables more people to take advantage of what it contains without having to think too much about copyright.Moreover, Wikipedia is free, unlike other encyclopedias of the time, and it is a manifestation of Wikipedia's purpose: to give free access to the sum of the world's knowledge.This idea is in the same breath as Encyclopaedia thought of the EnlightenAfter coming to Chin...

1. Summary Wikipedia has caused great social anxiety. They can question the pros and cons of cooperation and improvement. But I think Wikipedia can be better because it not only serves as a work but also organizes and competes with knowledge. Critics of digital transients are critical, but Wikipedia is intellectually equal, compensating for the shortcomings of the education staff's inability to access the documents. Sometimes Wikipedia is criticized for thinking it is essential to their daily lives, sometimes praised as an opportunity given to those who read the rich information in it. These doubts are causing a lot of debate, and will continue to be 2. Interesting point Praise and criticism of Wikipedia could be compared. Various criticisms exist, but they seem to be suspected because they can be modified "anybody" and the necessary information is compressed. If we mediate and accept these discussions between angels and critics, Wikipedia will have more influence on so...

Why do people contribute to Wikipedia? They are not getting paid... I think the reason why people contribute to Wikipedia even though they are not getting any money from doing so is because of their natural desire. What I mean by 'natural desire' can be described with Maslow's hierarchy of needs. An organism can survive with sufficient energy generated from food, water, and rest. But we humans desire more than just surviving. After physical needs are acquired we long for safety such as house, fence, or extermination of danger. After that, Maslow describes we need social belonging, that's why we form a society. Later is the needs for esteem, which controls the desire for feeling accomplishment, The final hierarchy of Maslow's pyramid is the need for self-actualization, the feeling of longing to be the best oneself. Wikipedia gratifies the 3rd and 4th floor of the hierarchy, which is the need for belonging and esteem. By doing Wikipedia people feels t...

1)Summary Wikipedia has become more influential in today's societies. As Wikipedia becomes to be containing more reliable sources, people tend to believe that information in Wikipedia is the standard of the real world around them. The perspective of this phenomenon differs as the generation and people's norms change. Sometimes, it is criticized because it makes people think that an encyclopedic platform is essential to their everyday life, sometimes it is praised for its opportunity given to people who read rich the information in it. We still do not know whether we should abandon it, or keep it by developing it in a better way. But what we do know is that people's longing for this kind of instrument has long been with us for many centuries and it won't disappear in a day or two. But can it really exist in a way that it 'pillars' about itself? Can it stay at a neutral point of view? Can it have good faith collaboration all the time? After all, it is a work of ...

The reading discusses if Wikipedia can only work in practice and not in theory. There is a metaphor by using a puzzle. At the Wikipedia event back in 2007, each contributor received a spherical puzzle, like any other jigsaw, the pieces must fit together. But in this case, they form a glove much like the one seen near the top of every Wikipedia article (The Wikipedia logo). The author uses the metaphor of a puzzle to explain the ways in which neutral point of view and good faith complement each other in the collaborative production of an encyclopedia. However, the puzzle was not to be given as a natural gift, it was not as a description of the encyclopedia but as an aspiration and intentional stance of its contributors. Moreover, we often see the world in the terms of ‘us versus them’, and we tend to be less favorable in judging others than we judge ourselves, and then we are amazingly dept at justifying and rationalizing our own mistakes. Giving the lack of social context in online in...

According to the reading Wikipedia has triggered larger social anxieties about technological and social change. The higher the standards that Wikipedia aims for, the more that Wikipedia will appear sub-standard to the outside world. Many reference controversies revolve around the extent to which reference works are seen as normative, that is, in some way condoning their subject and sources. Way back in the seventeenth century, it was with the sense that the language had reached perfection and should therefore be fixed. However, encyclopedist have been more willing to associate the scope of their subject, and its treatment, with a larger social program. Moreover, another probable reason reference works is thought to be normative is that they were marketed as resource for children. The implication was that any parent who failed to buy an encyclopedia for the youngster was depriving a child of the opportunity of doing well in school, and in life. The public however, noticed that encyclop...

1.Summary The cooperative method, the process of creating the Wikipedia encyclopedia, has many negative reactions. The author speaks of Wikipedia's criticism of collaborative practice, universal vision, encyclopedic impulses and topics related to technical inspiration. First of all, there is the problem that references to information provided by Wikipedia seem prescriptive. Also, Wikipedia should be careful not to divide its field into extremes of conservatism and progressives. Finally, there is also a critical view of Wikipedia and "Web 2.0." Criticism of people about Wikipedia is understandable. They may question the pros and cons of collaboration and the improvements. However, I think Wikipedia can be better because it not only serves as a work but also organizes and competes with knowledge. Wikipedia is suspected by critics and is causing a lot of discussion, but even if the content freezes, it's certain to remain meaningful. Also, it continues to grow.  ...

Summary Wikipedia allows anyone to edit and access encyclopedias. Wikipedia has the ideal of a cooperative culture. However, the existence of a dictator is essential to maintain and manage the organization. Not everyone is cooperative. In order to control those who are not cooperative, Wikipedia must be a democracy but not a democracy. It should be anarchy but not an anarchy. In other words, Wikipedia needs a merciful dictator. A merciful dictator encourages people to participate with the utmost neutral values, encouraging debate when conflicts arise and helping to draw conclusions through voting when debates are prolonged. They have power but are not in a higher position than Wikipedia. They are also Wikipedia. They are essential to keep Wikipedia afloat. I nteresting point It was interesting that the existence of a merciful dictator was essential. Seeing Wikipedia's merciful dictator reminded me of Namu Wiki of Korea. Like Wikipedia, Namu Wiki is an encyclopedia that an...

1. Summary Chapter 5 talks about consensus and decision-making. Wikipedia has reached an arbitration panel to reach an agreement. Their arbitration committee reached various agreements. The meaning of Wikipedia's agreement does not mean unanimous. An agreement is reached without active opposition. There are many ways to make a decision. And the methods have advantages and difficulties. Agreement means reaching the best possible solution. Wikipedia often quotes the saying "Voting is evil." Polling is not ending the discussion, but promoting and materializing the discussion. It can be concluded that Wikipedia is relatively tolerant of inherent ambiguity. Chapter 6 talks about the most important leadership in the agreement discussed earlier. In particular, it is a 'authoritative' form of leadership. Edgar Schein identifies ways of embedding and delivering culture, including how leaders react to important events and organizational crises. Wales, a representative exam...

Summary   "Trolls are the driving force behind Wikipedia. The worst trolls often spur the best editors into creating great articles that contain watertight references with only simple stubs without troll escapes." — Bachman's Law Wikipedia's claim for openness can be seen in the motto “Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit”. 1 But what do “open” and “who” actually mean? With the rise of FOSS, open is now a buzzword and has become a prefix of well-known concepts such as democracy and religion.  Interesing Point.  Like the Free Culture Movement, Wikipedia is a platform based on openness, transparency and cooperation. I was very impressed that great articles were created through discussions towards each other.  Discussion.   How can I ensure reliability, Wikipedia's eternal homework?

Summary  "Similarly, cooperation can be an equally provocative term that, for example, stimulates discussion about coordination or the difference between cooperation and cooperation." The open source software process is not a confusing freedom where everyone has equal power and influence. And it's not an idyllic community of like-minded friends where consensus is reached and easy to reach. In fact, conflict in this community is not uncommon. It is unique and inherent in the open source process. Therefore, the term collaborative culture refers to a set of assumptions, values, meanings and actions related to working together within a community. It is also similar in many ways to the concept of 'participating culture' in the media genre Henry Jenkins. Here, consumer-only fans of the commercial genre (eg sci-fi) are now producers within their "fandom" community.  Jenkins defines a low participation barrier as a participatory barrier, support f...

-Summary This reading describes Wikipedia's method of consensus decision making.  In Wikipedia, people usually make decisions through discussions, but in some cases they don't. If the debate intensifies or becomes too long, Wikipedia use polling. Online communities such as Wikipedia have so many members that polling is useful to easily gauge what opinions they have. In this case, polling is used in a different sense from voting. This is because majority opinion is not necessarily right.  Wikipedia wants to solve the problem through consensus, or at least wrap up the discussion, even if there is no clear conclusion. Administrators and the benevolent dictators help this process. An administrator is not a person in a higher position than other users. It simply means "custodian." When community is unable to reach an agreement, an influential leader is needed to make a final decision after gathering opinions. Benevolent dictator executes that role. -Int...

Summary Wikipedia is run by many people, many communities. One of the key operational policies is the consensus policy. In Wikipedia, there is a lot of discussion and a forum for reaching consensus.  An agreement does not mean unanimous, but it is through the majority of opinions, so those who oppose the opinions or topics should respect results of the debate(by poll..). In the process of reaching an agreement, misinformation from the outside and vicious bothering from the inside can be a threat to Wikipedia's operation. We need a manager to prevent this. In Wikipedia, which features this manager openness, it may seem like a dictator. However, openness is a good condition for various evils, so the more benevolent dictator is needed under these conditions. Interesting I really did not know that there is manager(a.k.a.dictator) in Wikipedia. I just thought that Wikipedia is always free and under freedom. But it was partially wrong. It is also manged by authorities and we who u...

Between an authorial leader and a dictator We all know that Wiki was started from ‘collective intelligence and community spirit’, but there was someone who did not think like that. After I read that Sanger launched more expert-friendly encyclopedia, I realized that Sanger might misunderstand the basic idea os Wikipedia (at that time, it called Nupeida). He said that he needed to understand how open, and decentralized project works. I agree that, because sometimes a thing people called ‘leadership’ can be changed to ‘dictatorship’.  It is more usual in big community. With having nickname, someone prove how much they contribute to the community and get more power or influence. This truly happens in Cafes (in Korea, there are millions of communities and we call it ‘Cafe’.) and hobby clubs. Why it happens? We still do not understand the slight differentiation between leader and dictator. We even do not know about ‘gentle dictator’ because this kind of dictators d...

 When I watched my lecture of wikipedia and did my wiki assignment, some question arose. I heard the Wikipedia is non-profit organization which means they don't make some money by Wikipedia. Then how Wikipedia works? Thanks to voluntary editors, wiki pages are made and released for free to all. And also there are not any commercial advertisement in Wikipedia. However to maintain server of Wiki page and to hire engineers, Wikipedia should need money.  So I searched at google how can Wikipedia works as non-profit organization. According to the search Wikipedia works by donation just like some non-profit museum. Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't accept donations in Korea so I can't know details about Wikipedia donation.  It is interesting that the huge website just like Wikipedia works by donations. But in one side, many people donate big money to streamers. So there's nothing wrong with Wikipedia's situation i think.

 Actually I don't have wiki editing or making hobby. But there are many information about what I love to in wikipedia just like some pc games or movies. If there are some wrong information about them, I will feel uncomfortable. I think making wiki is similar to telling my friend some information about my favorite things(It can be some games or movies, books, tv drama, sports etc...). Many people feel pleasure if another people like same things they like.  Also people want to make wiki because just they want to give some help people who don't know something they know. They just feel happy because they can help another people like volunteering. Also there should be people who just make wiki for a reason that I don't know.  Of course there are probably not so many active editors(just 1% or more less of all of wiki user I think). But wiki editors have their own reason for editing wiki. Thanks to that we can get some information about we want to know very easily.

The Benevolent Dictator Wikipedia tends to deviate from discipline as it allows openness and freedom to many people. But that doesn't mean anarchy. Among the many people gathered, there is an authority that has been given more credibility. They are leaders within the public content community who show spontaneous and merciful personalities and act exemplary. As Wikipedia emphasizes individual autonomy, there is also an open possibility that its leader can leave the community at any time if it does not meet his or her will. It was interesting that a power relationship was being formed even where people were free to do so. Of course, this power relationship does not lead to any negative oppression, but I thought once again that the power relationship itself is inseparable between human society and power. Without a reliable model leader, would Wikipedia go to a state of anarchy? Will individual autonomy result in evil without a good leader?