W15. What is the future of wikipedia? Will it be exist in 20 years? - Dong-Joon, Yoo


Prior to the creation of Wikipedia, people had not gathered the information easily they needed. However, Wikipedia has given the character of collective intelligence to the Internet space, so that many people can collaborate and share opinions and develop information continuously. Wikipedia expanded its forces as soon as it launched its services in 2001, becoming a vast dictionary of more than 260 languages. The strength of Wikipedia is that it can update information in real time. As the number of participants increased, the amount of information became rich. The success of Wikipedia has also accelerated the emergence of various media. But there is also controversy. As the spread of false information increases, the credibility of information is questioned, and the level and accuracy of information raises many questions.
There are also other threats. It is the emergence of smartphone. A recent Pew Research Center report found that 39 of the top 50 news sites received more traffic from mobile devices than from desktop and laptop computers. As the use of smartphones increases, the number of people who can participate in Wikipedia is likely to continue to decline. It is complicated and difficult to modify the contents of Wikipedia with smartphone. Will increasing smartphones lead to the downfall of Wikipedia? I do not think. Of course, the increase in smart phones may have some impact, but it is necessary to create an editing environment optimized for mobile. The worst-case scenario for Wikipedia is not disappearing overnight, but the participation of people, the accuracy and usefulness of the content is slowly diminishing, and the necessary reforms can not be done and destroyed. For Wikipedia, so many people have had so much information at a low cost. Wikipedia, the least selfish web site, is worth preserving and shaping.

Comments

  1. Clément ChevallierJune 17, 2018 at 4:02 AM

    Like you, I don't think that the increase of smartphones lead to the downfall of Wikipedia. Personally, I often use Wikipedia on my phone and I did some edits thanks to it. The interface is not perfect but not so bad. And it is very useful when you want to find an information rapidly.

    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