W4. Discuss Reagle's Chapters 1-2

1. Summary

 Wikipedia is not just an online multilingual encyclopedia. Wikipedia is a project based on technology that increases access to information and is a project to realize the historic goal of a universal encyclopedia. The technology for improving this 'information accessibility' fits well with Wikipedia's slogan, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Thus, Wikipedia has a special vision of access and openness.

 First, the explanation of vision. Wikipedia is an online wiki-based encyclopedia. Here 'Wiki' means 'Super-fast' in the Hawaiian language, which means that you can easily edit the page. And Wikipedia also allows editing in all browsers, which also improves accessibility. Based on this, Wikipedia contains over 3 million articles in the English language version. Also, each article is categorized according to its own rating criteria, and not all articles are of equal quality. More people are needed to improve this quality. On the commercial side, Wikipedia has a page that describes its own rules, a "discussion tap" where each article is discussed, and a mailing list that discusses more abstract or difficult issues.

 Wikipedia also has a collaborative culture. There are three most important aspects of this collaborative culture: “Neutral Point of View,” “No Original Research,” and “Verifiability”. These three things look different, but, they are one of the other aspects. Articles that do not follow this are not suitable for Wikipedia. For example, unverified articles are harmful in terms of new knowledge, but should be excluded to convey accurate knowledge. Therefore, reasonable judgment and collaboration of people is the best way to create a good Wikipedia.

 Chapter 2 begins with an explanation of the value Wikipedia is seeking. "One day, this encyclopedia will be available in schools around the world, and students only need the print costs to print," said Wikipedia founders Jimmy Wales and Nupedia. Here we can find a special "Enlightenment aspiration". It is the ideal type of knowledge that can be communicated to anyone, no matter what country's Internet penetration, country status, or individual status. This is difficult, of course, but we can use 'technology' to solve it. Numerous technologies were used to create Wikipedia. There is a knowledge classification method inspired by Biblographic, a research on the storage technology of Otlet for starting from an individual encyclopedia idea and storing it. In addition, there is Wells' 'World Brain' that has influenced the 'neutral position', and through projects such as' Project Gutenberg 'and' Project Interpedia ', Wikipedia has prepared itself for the world.

 As a result, Wikipedia has experienced remarkable growth since its inception. Although there have been failures in this growth, the contributions of millions of people are the biggest backers. As you read dozens of paragraphs, you can see how many areas have affected Wikipedia. And the spiritual support here is 'goodness'. Few people claim that Wikileaks is committed to world peace right now, but if there is this mental "goodwill" culture, Wikipedia will move forward for further development.

2. Interesting Point

  As I read this, Weber's Ideal Type came to mind. Ideal Type is a conceptual or analytical model that can be used to understand the world Weber presents. The ideal type does not exist, but it can provide a 'pure form' that is used for reference or comparison. The most important part of Wikipedia's idealism when I see it is the “Neutral Point of View,” “No Original Research,” and “Verifiability” that I said at the end of summary. First, the Neutral Point of View best fits the knowledge that everyone in the world can recognize. This is especially important because children whose ideas have not yet been established can use Wikipedia as a communication channel for knowledge. It is very dangerous for children to have biased thoughts because of false statements. In fact, in Korea, it causes disputes because it acknowledges the biased description of Wikipedia like "Namu Wiki". Secondly, ‘No Original Research’ has the effect of preventing the confusion it will bring. We tend to mistakenly believe that occasionally the right scientist, such as Galileo, may still be the victim of unjust death by the theological judgment of the time. However, the validation of modern theories is more systematic than these counter examples. I think that an original research that is merely studied by an individual should be validated by the academic community. Lastly, 'verifiability' can correct erroneous information from incorrect sources. Although Wikipedia considers newspapers as a source of reliance, there are now so-called " yellow journalism" among the many press. The role of filtering out this yellow journalism is 'validation'.

3. Discussion Point

 We found through this article that there are over three million articles in the largest Wikipedia, English Wikipedia. And the quality of each article is different. To improve the quality of each knight, the knight must be completed, and constant attention must be paid. However, in fact, once the article is completed, it is more than just editing a minor typo, checking the source of all the articles to increase the quality of the articles and giving them the source almost never occurs unless there is a passion for the article It is a very difficult task. Is there any easier way? From the time you create an article, there will be a variety of ways, including showing good examples of articles with the same topic and providing guidelines. What do you think? Are some 'EASY' ways to improve the quality of your articles?