W13 blog topic: Can Wikipedia disappear? - Jong Hoon Park


박종훈


I don't know exactly whether Wikipedia will disappear or not, but it doesn't seem easy to survive in Korea. In fact, Wikipedia's editing system is not as comfortable as I claim from the beginning of the semester. Although Wikipedia continues to manage with donations, in fact, it could face a crisis if fewer people use it and edit it. It can even disappear. In fact, the Korean version of Wikipedia is not always behind the tree wiki. It may continue to exist around the world, but for Koreans, Wikipedia could be a meaningless existence. Also, too strict about the source may be unfamiliar to Koreans. Since Wikipedia is literally an encyclopedia, it is wrong to criticize it unconditionally because it has to be somewhat strict in terms of facts and consistency. If the information is to be recorded, it is natural to include the source or source of the information unless a basis is needed to check if the information is true. In addition, if you write the source, you can pass it on later on if there is a problem with the article.

Some Wikipedia users have been demanding too many sources to the point of common sense, which is why many Korean Wikipedia documents describe their sources as unclear. A Wikipedia user who makes no contribution to the document but keeps posting warnings about the source needs constantly can be called a " source king. "

However, putting various restrictions on the solidity of the publisher and the areas where users can leave it to their discretion can negatively affect the development of Wikipedia in the long run. What do you think?

Comments

  1. UnknownJune 3, 2018 at 4:45 AM

    I agree with you. Wikipedia has very strict controls over copyright issues. Even if I write single line, I have to quote it in the public media. I know I should refrain from very subjective words such as blogs and SNS, but I feel it is too limiting the editors' discretion. This obviously can be a negative factor in some editors' interest.

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownJune 3, 2018 at 7:39 AM

    I don't feel like a familiar and comfortable system when I first started using Wikipedia. The influence of Wikipedia in Korea will not be so great, as it does not work as a familiar system for us who have been continuously taking classes using Wikipedia. But I think it is a little different in English speaking countries at least. In fact, there are many and many different kinds of English materials in Wikipedia. This is a circumstantial evidence that a lot of people are quite satisfied with and often use Wikipedia's current system. Therefore, if the function of debate is strengthened as a critical thinking based on respect, I think it will never be easy for Wikipedia to disappear.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

W3. Why do you think people use Wikipedia? Why do others write for it? - Sun bo Sim

 Why do you think people use Wikipedia? Why do others write for it? 1. Summary It is quite natural that the main purpose people use Wikipedia is to get information. So I thought about why people choose Wikipedia for getting information. I think the first reason is the reliability of information in Wikipedia. We have many other sources of getting information. We can search for information scattered on the web through search tools such as Google or Naver. But we do not have the ability to ensure that such data are reliable. However, people prefer Wikipedia because it looks at its slogan " The Free Encyclopedia, " believing it may have the character of an encyclopedia. I also believe that Wikipedia's credibility is enhanced by the fact that its information is constantly being edited through the process of collective intelligence. 2. Interesting Point Most people use Wikipedia to get information. However, some people like to make new articles and give information s...
Read more

W5. Can we trust Wikipedia? Yun-Jin Kim

Then I want to ask. Can we trust News? I think Wikipedia is based on sources. Every time we edit on Wikipedia we need the sources. If we don’t put sources, the information we wrote would be deleted.   So I think asking ‘How can we trust Wikipedia’ is kind of similar to ‘How can we trust News’. I know there could be subjective opinion on Wikipedia. If the topic is unpopular, the public opinion doesn’t focus, there’s could be no feedback and that makes Wiki subjective. for this reason, we have to think before we choose the topic in Wiki. If the topic isn’t famous enough and have no sources, we should think this information isn’t sure enough. but if the topic has clear sources we can have a trust on that information. I think it is not important to ask, ‘is the Wikipedia trustful’. It is important to ask ‘is this information on Wikipedia has a exact source?’.
Read more

W6. How important is it to be civil online on the Internet?-Ji Young An

These days lots of controversial problems are rising. And because of those problems, people fight on the Internet. But I think most of problems happen because of a lack of civic attitudes. As I highlighted the discussion section of Wikipedia last post, talking together with having civic attitudes is very important point. On the Internet lots of people meet. And this means all of them has different thinking and experiences different cultures. So it is certain that everyone's opinion is different. But I think from this difference, the collective intelligence comes. So I think this difference is very important. But sadly, because of this difference some people fight, just arguing their opinion is one hundred percent right. This attitude is nothing good to our collective intelligence. To develop collective intelligence, people need the civic attitudes. Not just persisting stubbornly they should talk and listen, trying to understand other people. If they talk their opinion or thinking...
Read more