W3. Why do you think people use Wikipedia? Why do others write for it?
Why do you think people use Wikipedia? Why do others write for it?
1. Summary
'Why do we use Wikipedia?' The answers to most of these questions are somewhat fixed. "To get information". But this next question needs a little more thought. Why do others write for it? I do not know about others, but at least I did not have anyone else who had experience editing Wikipedia except for classes in the category of people I know. I remembered when I first touched the editorial compartment of Wikipedia.
2. Interesting Point
The first time I started editing, I was researching a not-so-good indie game. My game was not very famous, so getting information about it was very difficult. The only way to get information about the game was to increase your playing experience. In the meantime, I saw a short chaplet on the game created on Wikipedia. It seemed like it was written by someone who felt uncomfortable with me. I looked at the article and found that there was some information that I did not know, but it was not listed in the article, even though I knew it. The next one will be somewhat predictable. I also pressed the edit box to create the information in it.
I think most people can not exist without interaction with others. There will also be interactions in these interactions that inform people who do not know the knowledge they know. Is not Wikipedia the best way to meet this need? If you do not have to be a high school degree, a journalist, or a teacher, you can share your knowledge with hundreds of millions of people on the Internet. I think the greatest advantage of this Wikipedia is to attract people.
3. Discussion Point
In addition to the foregoing, there is a growing need for knowledge to spread, and there are people who raise simple gossip. These people's intentions are not wrong, but they are against the principles of Wikipedia to propagate neutral and fair knowledge. However, as I posted in the last post, this Wikipedia principle is sometimes a reason to leave people. What should we do to resolve this?
1. Summary
'Why do we use Wikipedia?' The answers to most of these questions are somewhat fixed. "To get information". But this next question needs a little more thought. Why do others write for it? I do not know about others, but at least I did not have anyone else who had experience editing Wikipedia except for classes in the category of people I know. I remembered when I first touched the editorial compartment of Wikipedia.
2. Interesting Point
The first time I started editing, I was researching a not-so-good indie game. My game was not very famous, so getting information about it was very difficult. The only way to get information about the game was to increase your playing experience. In the meantime, I saw a short chaplet on the game created on Wikipedia. It seemed like it was written by someone who felt uncomfortable with me. I looked at the article and found that there was some information that I did not know, but it was not listed in the article, even though I knew it. The next one will be somewhat predictable. I also pressed the edit box to create the information in it.
I think most people can not exist without interaction with others. There will also be interactions in these interactions that inform people who do not know the knowledge they know. Is not Wikipedia the best way to meet this need? If you do not have to be a high school degree, a journalist, or a teacher, you can share your knowledge with hundreds of millions of people on the Internet. I think the greatest advantage of this Wikipedia is to attract people.
3. Discussion Point
In addition to the foregoing, there is a growing need for knowledge to spread, and there are people who raise simple gossip. These people's intentions are not wrong, but they are against the principles of Wikipedia to propagate neutral and fair knowledge. However, as I posted in the last post, this Wikipedia principle is sometimes a reason to leave people. What should we do to resolve this?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletekim - jongchan
ReplyDeleteI read your opinion well. You said it's because people are tired of chatting on Wikipedia and getting tired of non-neutral behavior. I think it's a step in the evolution of Wikipedia. I don't deny that sharing knowledge in a neutral and fair way, like Wikipedia's principle, is a must. But I think interaction is the core of Wikipedia. So I think the wrong things you said are the driving force behind Wikipedia. People are evolving. I expect a positive future. And I think it's possible to have Wikipedia, where there are only positive interactions, while following the principle. I also think it is possible if we pass this process safely.
Thank you for your comment. :)
DeleteI also sympathize with your opinion, but there are still parts that are not actually there. Nevertheless, the ideal that we should aim for is consistent with what you say.