Blogging through Wikipedia (2020)

A lot of care must be taken when designating categories. In particular, it is important to be careful about naming categories so that people do not get confused and reflect their characteristics. In addition, I could learn how to specify and set categories. Designating categories is more important than simply categorizing articles. It helps people deliver accurate information. If you need to organize a category, you should refer to it and make a quality composition.

I could learn how to develop articles in Wikipedia. First, I do research on the subject. Check what is already out on the subject of my choice. And you can find articles related to this and get academic help. It is effective to look for relevant books to go further from the article and build more solid information. After completing the research on the subject, I start writing articles. After that, finish and review through colleagues. I was able to learn how to write articles on Wikipedia, but I didn't know how to write them because I've never actually written them myself, but this has given me a sense of rationality.

Through this page, we can learn many things about Commons. First of all, I was confused by the previous article, wondering if Commons was run by a company or an individual. Reading this article, we can see that Commons is a media store that receives funding but is created and managed by volunteers. Commons thinks that we can help a lot more in producing and distributing media than we thought.

Creative Commons is a global nonprofit organization that provides free legal tools to share and reuse creativity and knowledge. However, it does not provide legal advice or legal services because it is not a law firm. CC is similar to a self-help service that provides free form-based legal documents for others to use. I didn't know that such a non-profit organization existed, but I found out this time. Wouldn't we be able to use it a lot if we could get help related to copyright?

This culture is a culture that encourages the creation and derivation of new creations by editing or combining existing ones. Cultural development has been slow and frozen due to decades of strict copyright restrictions, but this culture has also been established by acknowledging that such remixing is a cultural act. It was interesting that the remix culture was being applied in a wide variety of areas. Also, I was looking forward to seeing how many more works will appear in the future, thinking that there was no move to create something new from the existing one, but that it has just emerged. But we will have to know how to correctly distinguish the boundaries between plagiarism and remix. What attitude should we have as consumers of information?

The free cultural movement is to encourage the free distribution and modification of information related to social movements and to creatively open up to others on the Internet. That is why the movement opposes copyright laws that are excessively restrictive. Too much restriction stifles people's creativity. People call such a system a licensed culture. To authorize the sharing and reprocessing of many works under various conditions. Like this, the free cultural movement has a great feature of free exchange of ideas, and is connected not only to open source Swiftware, but also to other movements or philosophies such as open access, remix culture and hacker culture. It also approaches the Knowledge Exercise Copylift Exercise and Public Movement. In fact, unlike the Copyright Act, I realized for the first time that there is a separate name for a culture that allows users to freely use and reprocess their creations. I thought that being licensed to process as long as there was permi...

Wikipedia is not used as a dictionary for people who undermine these values instead of emphasizing openness and freedom. It is used as an interest, and this behavior also discourages the evaluation of Wikipedia. This is the biggest application of Wikipedia's shortcomings, making the quality of information significantly ambiguous. I knew that the value of a project started for positive effects could be disparaged depending on how the user used it, but I didn't think it would be abused in so many areas. Is Wikipedia used as an entertainment in Korea as well?

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions This is a guide to make the most of the RfA (administration for request) procedure. Opinions opposed to RfA should be reviewed in more detail than those supported. Nor should criticism be baseless and should be constructive and courteous. In addition, those who have been verified for reliability benefit. Of course, anyone can make a mistake, at this point you should look at the person's attitude after making a mistake, rather than focusing on the mistake itself. You have to see if you can correct the error. We often judge how much the person cares and is active only by the total number of edits, but we shouldn't. In fact, many people who have edited so many times have been blocked many times. I think we should be able to look at the process in it.

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable and open sources and should include both the majority and significant minority opinions from those sources. Regardless of whether the source is negative, positive, neutral, or questionable, the controversial data about a non-sourced or un-sourced living person (or, in some cases, recently deceased) should be removed immediately without waiting for discussion. Articles shall be proved based on reliable sources, such as works themselves, authors and authors. The information added to Wikipedia is also provided by a trusted third party. And it is true that the most neutral point of view should be presented, but it is only a recommendation and not a necessity. While it would be most desirable for a trusted third party to provide information in a neutral position, it was interesting that sometimes non-neutral information might be more beneficial to people. Because if various people look at information from their own perspective, those who use ...

Wikipedia has the problem of losing credibility because it captures the opinions and knowledge of various people. To address these vulnerabilities, Wikipedia administrators overcome them by examining how quickly false or misleading information is removed through some assessments of reliability. And because these tests are done really quickly and accurately, they are evaluated to have effective healing functions. We also encourage you to use the most representative Wikipedia postings with sources. We respect individual autonomy, but sometimes we need restrictions. That's why we have to censor ourselves when we provide information, even if it's a good start, but we have to be able to filter it out when we take it. Wikipedia is also a forum where non-experts can freely express their opinions, although there are experts in Wikipedia is also a forum for discussion. To what extent do you trust Wikipedia? Do you think you can collect meaningful information?

The book talks about Wikipedia's success factors. There is good faith and cooperation at its core. This success was possible because of good-will-based cooperation. Of course, as can be seen from the encyclopedia anxiety previously addressed, groups of amateurs lacking authority also cause instability. The book introduces Wikipedia, which has various shortcomings but also has powerful advantages. The value of cooperation emphasized by Wikipedia has been shown through these lectures. We also came to think about the consequences of poor cooperation. We will continue to make efforts for cooperation based on good will.

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 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?

The Challenges of Consensus Consensus means all the groups of people who share the same opinion with me. In Wikipedia, consensus is the most important thing, and the best means of using this common opinion is voting. While polls have the advantage of being able to express one's thoughts and opinions in more detail, voting can lead to Consensus more quickly. That's why large groups of people who want to achieve common goals prefer voting to quantify their opinions. In the first place, it was interesting to sum up the opinions of many people in a dictionary, which was not a one-way dictionary, but a two-way dictionary, and a dictionary that allowed various people to participate without restrictions. But in the case of voting, it could undermine the diversity of opinion. What are some ways to express opinions in more detail than voting, which is simpler than opinion polls?

 This is because the websites built in Korea have already taken root in our lives. As globalization progresses, people's perceptions have changed, but Korea is basically a country with a high ethnic spirit and openness, but it has a strong conservative side. As a result, the Korean community is greatly revitalizing, creating a sense of emotional solidarity while watching various events. So I think the use of websites from abroad is decreasing. I think it's most common for students to find websites like Wikipedia or Google because Korean websites alone are sufficient to learn the information needed to live in Korea. It seems to be used to search for information that can't be found on Korean websites.  

 This is because Wikipedia is a website where people from various countries gather to provide knowledge, so it is more appropriate. Compared to small societies, such as sites shared only within one country, people with diverse cultural experiences gather. This is because more people can agree with the information, more information is needed from both the ruling and opposition parties, and the amount of information is much larger than that of websites run in a country.  However, as we've learned before, just because the information is posted on Wikipedia does not necessarily mean that it is correct or has high standards of reliability or validity. Therefore, we will have to recognize and accept information ourselves. So, I think that the more accepted Wikipedia shows that it is being used more effectively.

1. Summary Wikipedia is one of the best websites on the Internet today. And not just the Internet, but the different kinds of economics and community ethics that Wikipedia has come to define what the answer is. Wikipedia is a community formed through collaboration. Such cooperation is done within the culture of the community or within a set of norms and is defined through its struggle. This cooperation creates social benefits that many people around the world depend on. 2. What was interesting  With the development of technology, people may become more individualistic and it may be even more difficult to form a forum for public opinion. In addition, by creating a website called Wikipedia, people can exchange and share various opinions and create common sense that many people can relate to. It was interesting to think of applying the development of technology in this way. 3. Discussion Point  It's right to gather more diverse people than any other website,...

1. Summary Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources and should contain a majority and all significant minority opinions that appear in such sources. Regardless of whether the source is negative, positive, neutral, or questionable, the controversial material for the unsourced living (or, in some cases, the most recently deceased) must be removed without immediate delay. Articles shall be certified on the basis of the work itself, the author, and other reliable sources. Also, the information added to the Wikipedia is provided by a reliable third party. It is true that the government should present a neutral point of view as much as possible, but it is not a necessary recommendation. 2. What was interesting It was interesting that although it was best to have a trusted third party provide information in a neutral manner, sometimes non-neutral information would be more useful to people. If a variety of people look at the information from their own standpoint,...

We have gone through a variety of processes to achieve today's development. The reason why we have been able to go through such a process is that various people have gathered to express their opinions and persuade each other to improve their knowledge. I think this is the power of collective intelligence. "Human beings have the word social animal, but we think that they cannot live alone, and that they can live only when they form a society and harmonize together."Now that we have developed, we can live alone, but it is possible for us to have such an idea only when collective intelligence develops. Of course, there is a saying in Korean proverb that if there is a boatman, the boat goes to the mountains. This means that if more people present their opinions, the situation will get worse rather than better. If multiple intellectuals gather together, this is quite possible. However, it is worthwhile to work together even if we accept these risks, and we decided to take the...