W15 blog topic: What is the future of Wikipedia? Will it exist in 20 years? 50? 100? - Jong Hoon Park



As I have argued since the beginning of the semester, Wikipedia seems hard to maintain its reputation at least in Korea. In fact, Wikipedia was a success abroad, and it was hard to escape the hardships of Korea. It is true that this collective intelligence system is still new to our country, and the existence of alternatives such as the tree wikis may be one of the factors that has prevented our nation from succeeding. So in conclusion, the future in Korea looks uncertain. But outside of Korea, Wikipedia users are also growing, and a lot of progress is being made as many articles and materials are piling up.

So clearly, Wikipedia will exist in the future, and it will improve. However, I am very concerned about Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a nonprofit organization and is run on sponsorship. So, it seems like there will be a difficult part in the end, a financial crisis, or a hard way to encourage participants.

I personally wish Wikipedia would grow as a company. In the end, I think that the market economy in which money operates the world is the basic market principle of the world, and there are definitely many areas where there are limits if money is low and low. What do you think?

Comments

  1. UnknownJune 16, 2018 at 6:59 AM

    I read your post well. We know that Wikipedia is currently running the site through sponsorship. But I do not know about the more specific import system. Of course, I think it may be difficult to operate the site in the future through regular sponsorship, but I think it is not good to change into a private company. I think that if it become a company, it can operate with its own interests and control those who are against their interests.

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownJune 17, 2018 at 7:57 AM

    If Wikipedia were to be a company, I think it would be difficult to maintain the current system. Because companies operate with the goal of creating maximum profits with minimal capital. I think Wikipedia's management of these goals will hamper Wikipedia's growth through collective intelligence.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

W12: discuss Reagle’s 6th chapter

As we know by now, Wikipedia is a community that yearns to be open and egalitarian. However such things are not possible because of the downsides it would produce. To tackle this issue wikipedia has implemented the so called authorial leadership, when action is needed those who possess the power can take action. How are there chosen ? Simply base on their contribution and loyalty to wikipedia. This leadership is located in between meritocratic, autocratic, anarchic and democratic, for it mixes different aspect of the forms of authority quoted beforehand. The system can maintain itself as it does not allows any « gods » in the community, only hard workers that prove they’ve earned the title. But with the possibility to log in, and so, to identify yourself, those who largely contribute by editing build themselves a informal reputation and authority, thus become administrator. Acknowledged by everyone, they can mediate internal dispute, guide the community and defend wikipedia ideals
Read more

W5. Can we trust Wikipedia? -Yeonju Heo

  Can we trust Wikipedia?   Before I think about this question, I read these articles in Wikipedia: ‘Criticism of Wikipedia’ and ‘Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.’ There are many criticism of Wikipedia. Typical criticisms are related to the following.: accuracy, notability, quality, neutrality, reliability. These criticisms are because Wikipedia is made up of a large number of anonymous writers who are not experts. Anyone can write any article in Wikipedia. Of course, article is confirmed by others and if it does not meet the criteria mentioned above, it is modified or deleted. But, problems occur when uncertain articles spread fast. Wikipedia has many articles and it is created in Wikipedia everyday. So, it is impossible to confirm all article and uncertain article can spread. There are actually many examples like this. As one of the anonymous writer, I am not sure that when writing a Wikipedia article, I can meet both accuracy, notability, quality, neutrality, and reliabi
Read more

W5. Can we trust Wikipedia? - JiWon Min

 Some parts are reliable, but I don't think they are as credible as thesis.   First of all, I will explain why I said I can trust Wikipedia. When we edit an article on Wikipedia, we type reference. Thanks to that we can secure the reliability of our articles.  In addition, even if there is some erroneous information or controversial issue, it can be fixed through discussion among users. If there is a lack of format and content for the article, ask the editor of the article for correction and improvement. So our articles are credible.    However, there is a limit to the fact that discussions and warning messages (about the lack of articles) can not ensure that their quality improves to a reliable level.  Indeed, many articles on Wikipedia have warning messages that mean 'they are not professional and reliable.'  I think the reason why this happens so often is because no one except the editor has a direct obligation to the quality of the article.  The editor
Read more