Blogging through Wikipedia (2020)

Summary MoS is a guide to the format of Wikipedia articles. The simplest way to refer to the format of a article is to copy a well-written article. The lead section is the first part of the article, and should include a concise definition of the article in the length of one to four paragraphs. The article consists of sections and subsections. Headings should omit the word "the" and the title of the article, and only the first word is capitalized. Images can be attached to help the reader understand the article. Citing should use reliable sources and give the reader sufficient information to identify them. It is also important to use links to help readers understand the subject of the article. In addition, style and formatting should be maintained consistently within the article. Interesting Point I didn't know there was a separate guide to the formatting of the article. I was wondering how to organize the contents of the image attachment box, now I can refer to...

Summary Creative Commons(CC) is a global nonprofit organization that provides free legal tools on copyright. Wikipedia Commons (WC) is a media repository where freely licensed materials are stored, created for the purpose of storing media used in the Wikimedia Foundation's projects. Both CC and WC were created for the purpose of sharing knowledge with more people. But there is a clear difference between them. CC is a license that allows the public to use copyright holders' works under certain circumstances, while copyright holder having their copyrights intact. CC allows for the registration of relatively diverse types of data. On the other hand, in WC, you can only upload freely licensed media files that allow commercial use and the creation of derivative works like the public domain. In addition, only 'media' files such as photos, scanned images, and video clips can be uploaded to WC. Interesting Point I've seen CC's icon before, but I didn't know ex...

-Summary Wikipedia is mentioned in various fields of Western culture, including article, pro-motion, comic stripe, commercial, TV show, and Novel. It is sometimes used in a positive sense, but there are many mocking comments that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that lacks the reliability that anyone can modify. Colbert called Wikipedia's information "wikiality," meaning "truth by consensus." This was a criticism that Wikipedia considers some information true through agreements, even if it is not really accurate information. -Interesting Point Wikipedia was affecting Western culture more than I thought. In Korea, there is not much mention of Wikipedia. Unless when I have assignment and need to access it for information search, there is virtually no contact with Wikipedia in everyday life. -Discussion What do you think is the reason why Korean culture is not interested in Wikipedia?

-Summary  Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources. Also, all opinions on the subject should be dealt with in a neutral manner. Wikipedia evaluates reliable sources with its own strict criteria. It considers not only the sources , but also the specific context. For example, more attention should be paid to writing biographical documents about living people. Articles whose source does not meet Wikipedia's criteria are deleted. So is Wikipedia reliable? There have been several studies about this, but generally not considered completely reliable. People think that the sources used in Wikipedia are reliable rather than Wikipedia itself. So they usually don't use Wikipedia as any academic material, but as a starting point for research. -Interesting point Wikipedia was using more factors than I thought as a criterion for evaluating reliable sources. It was interesting that there was a 'context' among that factors. It was also interesting that the reliability of Wik...

 The book deals with Wikipedia's beginning and development process, systems, conflicts and cooperation among users, and culture. While reading, I was surprised and interested by the unexpected contents. The most interesting part was the conflict between Wikipedia users and how they handled it. In fact, most Internet sites, as well as Wikipedia, are full of attack toward each other because of their anonymity. Discussion in Wikipedia can lead to more violent debates, especially as people with different views on a particular event will discuss it. However, Wikipedia users used various methods such as poll or mediators to prevent the impact of excessive overheating of the debate. It was amazing that users themselves supported peaceful cooperation on anonymous sites that were prone to attack each other, and that it had become Wikipedia's culture. I felt that the Good Faith Collaboration of  Wikipedia users was an example of proving that the world cou...

-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 Collaborative culture in Wikipedia means a set of assumptions, values, meanings, and actions pertaining to working together within a community. Wikipedia has many convenient features that make it easy for people to edit articles and discuss. - Interesting Point d - Discussion d

- Summary Wikipedia is both an encyclopedia and a community. It provides information that reflects the universal view of the time through conversation of the community. The example of “neo-Nazi attack” upon the English-language Wikipedia shows that Wikipedia pursues prudent discussion without personal attacks. Wikipedia's vision is not only the sum of all knowledge, but also the collaboration of global community. This vision has existed since the past, but only Wikipedia has achieved it. Wikipedia enabled efficient collaboration of community through it's special features which is different from other wikis. - Interesting Point It was interesting that there were projects for similar goals before Wikipedia. I was surprised at convenience of Wikipedia's visual editing when I edited articles. Now I found that much effort was needed to develop the function through this assignment. It was also surprising that Wikipedia, which thought it was created simply for the purpose...

-Summary Wikipedia is a collaborative community in which people around the world freely share a variety of knowledge. The author was interested in this innovative feature of Wikipedia and studied it. We can find plenty of arguments at Wikipedia, but the intention and spirit of the discussion in Wikipedia is quite different from other communities.  When the author working at the W3C, he saw the varied personalities of his peers complemented each other and yielded new solutions that go beyond the level of individuals. He thought the discussion in Wikipedia is similar with it.   -Interesting Point The author's opinion of the discussion in Wikipedia reminds me of a group project. Solution comes out much better when various opinions are gathered than those of one person. Arguments are tiring, but I think listening to and thinking about different opinions broadens the range of thoughts. -Discussion Wikipedia is a site that's been through the hands of many peopl...

-Summary This article explains the source that Wikipedia recognizes is reliable. The source has three definitions: The recipe of work itself, The Creator of the work, The Publisher of the work, and can get reliability according to context and age. The types of sources include Scholarship, News Organization, Vendor and e-Commerce sources, Biased or open sources. The sources that are not recognized as reliable sources include Questionable sources, Sponsored content, Self-publicized sources (online and paper) and user-generated content.  As an exception,published and questionable sources as sources on themselves, can be used as source in articles about themselves. -Interesting Point It is interesting to accept biased or opinionated sources as reliable sources.  I thought biased sources are not fair and can't be accepted as reliable sources.  So Wikipedia's policy of allowing biased or opinionated sources to show various perspectives on the subject was refreshing...

Last semester, I took Prof. Piotr's "Sociology of Globalization" class. One of the tasks given in the class was to translate and register non-existent articles in Korea or English Wiki. It was a difficult task because I was not good at writing English, but the process of editing articles and putting source and annotation by using Wiki was more interesting than I thought. I was also proud to be able to see the article that I actually wrote on Wikipedia. I am looking forward to learning more about Wikipedia trough this class.