W13 blog topic: Can Wikipedia disappear?. ByoungHyun Chun(천병헌)

Can Wikipedia disappear?


Information sociology
2015048986 천병헌

1. Summary

To answer the above question, Wikipedia can never disappear. It will rather revive.
 
  Modern people are very interested in Web 2.0. Web 2.0 refers to a new trend in the Internet industry that organizes services with content created by Internet users themselves. The video-sharing site, YouTube, and Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that can be uploaded and modified by anyone, are the leading companies of Web 2.0. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales argues that encyclopedias should be radical. He presents the goals of Wikipedia. He says we should share our knowledge and allow all of us to see the whole of human knowledge for free. Wikipedia is different from Google and Yahoo. In Wikipedia, anyone can log on, upload, and search. In the sense of sharing these creative spaces, people call Wikipedia collective intelligence. In this context, where else is Wikipedia, which is a creative working place and acts as an encyclopedia? Perhaps the answer is what Wikipedia shows most effectively. Wikipedia is now the world's ninth most popular portal. There is an enormous amount of information here. Wikipedia is not a data dump that aggregates data, but an encyclopedia that summarizes only important issues of human knowledge. Now, these Wikipedia locations and the role of the site are great. And now there is not enough encyclopedia or creative space to replace it. However, if more creative sites appear in the Web 2.0 space in the future, they could replace Wikipedia. Or it will provide directions for Wikipedia to go in a better direction.

2. Interesting point

  Jimmy Wales spoke of Wikipedia's philosophy in an interview. He says it is to create and store knowledge to build a knowledge base and provide it to mankind for free. He says YouTube posts videos of its own, but doesn't look like it is cooperating with each other. He says the goal is to have everyone join in and create a larger cooperative network. I personally think of the problem with Wikipedia. The amount of information on Wikipedia is enormous. And there is a lot of collective intelligence, cooperation. However, only a few people are actively involved in editing information. The majority of them simply quote or view information. This connects with the Pareto law and the Long Tail law. A small number of people (20 %) may replace the majority (80 %). But it has its own meaning. Without the majority of roles, a few people do not have to go into editing. There are a few editors because many people share and quote information. And the days of making your own personal pages are over. It is important that many people work together and participate in these days. On the surface, Wikipedia is said to be at risk of information bias and dictatorship. However, it can be seen that the passive participation of many people who are not exposed to the index is also important.

3. Discussion point

  The participation of users is important to prevent Wikipedia from disappearing or encouraging participation in Wikipedia. How should people behave in the creative space of Wikipedia? And if we did not have a creative activity space like Wikipedia in the Web 2.0 era, could we share various information efficiently?

Comments

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