W13. Can wikipedia disappear?- Tae Joon Yoo


1.Summary

Wikipedia has evolved since its birth. It provides services in more than 100 languages and tens of thousands of people are involved in editing articles. Now, Wikipedia is one of the most popular sites on the Internet web. However, despite these developments, people say that Wikipedia may disappear. The reason is that the participation rate is low due to the advent of SNS. Blog was once a leader in the culture of the Internet, Twitter and Facebook replaced blogs. This is because Twitter and Facebook's interfaces are much easier than blogs and they enable faster information acquisition. But I don't think Wikipedia is at risk of disappearing. Of course, Wikipedia will also face the challenges which blog faced. However, SNS such as Facebook and Twitter have a lot of fake news. The only way to censor this is by making one's own judgment. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is the product of collective intelligence. When writing an article about an information, numerous revisions and discussions are made and it is essential that the source of information be written. In conclusion, SNS has replaced blogs, but it can not replace Wikipedia because it can not replace Wikipedia's accuracy and credibility.

2.Interesting point

If Wikipedia disappears, the cause may be possible if the number of users has declined dramatically and the information has not been modified. I am sure Wikipedia will not disappear if It can keep the current number of users. I don't think Wikipedia will ever disappear if users maintain accurate information through high participation.

3. discussion point

The reason why all Internet sites fail is because there are fewer users. Wikipedia currently has many users and its users are very loyal. SNS replaced blogs because they do not provide more accurate and better service than SNS. So, will there be a replacement platform for Wikipedia in the future? What would it look like if it comes out?

Comments

  1. UnknownJune 2, 2018 at 4:11 AM

    I agree with you. A lot of people in Wikipidaa are editors. They have high interest and loyalty. So Wikipedia is the world's ninth most popular portal today. But there are some problems with Wikifida as well. First, most of the Wikipedia editors are passive participants. They only serve to quote and share information rather than edit it. Their behavior can not be ignored. The small role of most people assists in the role of active editors. That is, these actions are also linked to long tail laws.

    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