Week 14 assignment

Week 14. What did I learn in this course?

    It is the second time that I learn about Wikipedia. At first time, I sometimes used Korean Wikipedia but I didn't use anything to write, edit and comment in Wikipedia, I just searched some article in that site. I was unskilled to use Wikipedia but after I learned and tried to use Wikipedia, I understood to edit some article and operate some tools in Wikipedia. There are lots of things that I was surprised about Wikipedia. Among them, the thing that I was really surprised fact was that Wikipedia is comprised of many  volunteers in the world and they always watch on other’s edting in Wikipedia. Actually I was concerned about articles because many people who use Wikipedia wrote lots of article, so Wikipedia would be massy. But there are many server monitors that watch on people’s editing so Wikipedia maintained for a long time. Other thing that I was surprised fact in Wikipedia was that people could discuss their opinion about some topics. Wikipedia has ‘talk page’, so if someone has different opinion about article, he or she could write their opinion on the talk page. This tool was refreshing to me so I tried to discuss some topics with other users. 

     In this fall semester, I learned more difficult editing skill. Sometimes It was really hard to use it because some tools were unfamiliar to edit for me. When I edited some articles, I tried to use difficult editing skills. I tried to make a table, graph and so on. It's a valuable experience for me.  

[Week14] what did i learn in this course?

what did i learn in this course.

There are several things that i learned from this course.

First of all, although I already took this course last semester, by attending this class I can get more proper information about, what we called, collective intelligence. Collective intelligence is not only gathered information but also main operating mechanism of wikipedia, furthermore main pillar of information society. Additionally, power of collective intelligence is more powerful than my thoughts. Second, I can easily find out specific information via wikipedia. I have learned of both shortcut and project that in wikipedia. It surely navigate for me to the information what i want to get. Third, I also know about inequality of information between people in the world, Which country have censorship policy forward to encyclopedia for their own purpose such as maintain their government like china.

Moreover I became a core volunteer of wikipedia that we already saw some table and graph. Every single week we edited at least 10 articles that we have interested in or not. Throughout last 15 weeks we already edited 150 edited including micro, small, big edit.  It will help my career for future. I am so happy as I could attend this course, met nice colleagues, contacted with passionate course director!

W14

What did I learn in this course?

 

 

I am study wikipdia from spring season to this season with professor. This time is hard time because speaking. but this time is meaning time. I get many things. First of all, we edited 10 article each week and presented this edits. from this activity, I should read overall flow in wikipedia. many functions in Wikipdia are not accustomed. but basic functions that are uploading photo, making table, adding reference become accustomed. Secondly, This course is reconsider time about Collective Intelligence in information society. I can see people of world make fast flow of information and consensus in one topic. also I get interested in truth and copyright of information. the internet in korea was ignored about these parts. But rules of wikipedia act standard of these part.

Blog Topic 14: What did I learn in this course?

I've learned several things in this course. First and most obviously, I learned how to use Wikipedia searching, editing information and navigating Wikipedia. I still remember how afraid I was to click edit button because I was thrilled of the idea that what I wrote would be shown to anyone. If I remember correctly, I wasn't able to edit information till the end. Now, I know how to edit and I can do it without trying to have that much braveness. It is a fun, easy, and meaningful work for me which gave me the second thing I feel I learned. I learned how to communicate with people in Wikipedia and how to trust them. That helped me to think editing is fun and easy because there are so many people out there helping me to improve Wikipedia who are willing to correct information if I do something wrong. Third and the last, I learned a better picture of Collective Intelligence by being involved in Wikipedia and observing it closely. Especially my experiences, developing an infobox and asking village pump to be able to solve problems and getting answers, made me think that Collective Intelligence is worthy knowing and studying about.

W13

It is not easy to disappear. Disappearing has lots of means. It may mean; disappear forever in people's memory, disappear but still exist in people's memory etc. For wikipedia, it has several kinds of utilities it is encyclopeida more than encyclopedia. Furthermore it also has community(talk page) people can discuss lots of things and they are trying to catch up the cycles in web society. They have community and the articles are edited by different types of people which can listen to other people's thoughts. The wikipedia is more than encyclopedia what it means and is enrolling in lots of places ; schools, wikipedia is used as an education for young people who will later talk about things in society. There are many ways that wikipedia cannot be forgotten. For these reasons, it never be forgotten and will exist very long time.

W12

Anywhere people gathered in group needs a leader, mostly. For the wikipedia it needs certain type of leader. The reason why I am saying 'certain type' is because this encyclopedia is building up by all kinds of people. Wales and Sangers are the ones who founded and the ones who really developing articles are wikis. In my opinion all people deserves to be a leader however, at least one point needs to be. For example, it is necessary to have one who can control when there is a situation that wikis cannot handle themselves. Not a high placed, but a peace-controller is necessary for this community. The wikipedians give their thoughts in wikipedia talk page however there need a place or a commitee that have nurtral point view then the wikipedia would be well-controlled in other conditions. But a commitee should be aware that all wikipedians are leaders for wikipedia.

W13

 I think wikipedia don’t disappear. Globally, I see Wikipedia has more accrued information than other accrued spaces. Also Use of wikipeida is increasing in korea. for example, popular website in korea (http://www.hiphopplaya.com/) is using wikipdia to arrange Korea’hiphop history through 5~7 article. That is mdia channel little by little realizes wikipdia usefulness in korea. Other platform’ information not accrued (ex, Facebook, twitter...) but Wikipdia is upgrading and accompanying day by day. Wikipedia is appropriate in open information society That is are emphasized Through history function that many people can edit missing information, return past information. But I think one thing. rule of Wikipdia make upgrading consensus but many rule weaken power of open information.

[Week 13] : Can Wikipedia disappear?

week 13 : Can Wikipedia disappear?

There are some people who worry that wikipedia will be disappeared within few years. However, before we discuss about that matter, it is improper word for us to use “disappear”. Disappear means “No longer see anymore”. However, there are nothing to do disappear except unvisible things. So rather than using of “disappear”, using diminish or weak use is more proper in this discussion.  

As we know, there are different kinds of encyclopeida before Wikipedia appeared. People seldom change thier use pattern. However if the encyclopedia could not catch up with specific change of our society, or follow the ask of users, people do not enter and use that pages anymore. Although, wikipedia is not a heavy trend follower, they try to follow up of changing in our society and demands from users. They having been changing their contents, management system, operating system. This is the strong point of collective intelligence with wikipedia.

We are all know the sprits of web 2.0 are sharing, transparency, participating. Not like other closed encyclopedia, wikipedia  comply with that rule. For this reason, wikipedia is never dissapear and diminish easily.     

Week13 assingment

Week 13 Blog Topic: Can Wikipedia disappear? 

sehyun Oh

I think Wikipedia can’t disappear. Recently, Wikipedia has begun to burgeon in the world so many people who use Wikipedia increased. Also many people started to use Wikipedia in South Korea these days. There are a lot of reasons that people use Wikipedia. I think the most important reason is people can contribute Wikipedia by themselves. They can discuss, edit and see other’s opinion about articles. Also they can get useful information by using Wikipedia. It is a huge encyclopedia in the world. So if someone wanted to find information, they search and find by using Wikipedia. But it is not easy for all people. In my case, I felt difficult to use Wikipedia because I didn’t know how to use it and when I wanted to see some information, I couldn't find easily. But after I did tutorial in Wikipedia, tried to use Wikipedia and discussed about article with other Wikipedians, I started to get excited about Wikipedia. Wikipedia makes lots of useful information and convenient to use it for people. So I think Wikipedia can’t disappear.

Blog Topic 13 : Can Wikipedia disappear?

I don't think Wikipedia will ever disappear in the future. I will exist as an encyclopedia. The matter is whether another encyclopedia will appear or not, and how people use Wikipedia continuously. There is an example. Cyworld was a big issue and commomly used among Koreans until people began to use Facebook. Now we don't know if Cyworld does exsit or not, although it still does. People give that less attention to Cyworld. I think we need to understand Wikipedia in the same context since it't an encyclopedia which is run by people editing. So, I would say Wikipedia will maintain its exsitence, but I don't know how our future and technology will Wiki-riendly for us.

Week 12 assignment

Week 12. Discuss Reagle’s chapter 6

sehyun oh    

  

In this chapter, it talked about what is authorial leadership. Wikipedia has been successful in the pursuit of a universal encyclopedia. However, Wikipedians must reconcile their vision with the inescapable social reality of irritating personalities, philosophical differences. Despite Wikipedia’s openness, Wikipedia has been shaped by authorial leadership. After I read this chapter, I understood why Wikipedia is so hard to me. This part is also hard to read to me. Also I understood authorial leadership did lots of contributions for Wikipedia. Also I was curious about authorial leadership while I was reading this chapter. How we make an authorial leadership and what is a good leadership.

[Week 12]

 As a community, wikipedia has a ruling system that maintian the encyclopedia. There are lots of ruling system such as democrcy, aristocracy, monarchy etc. Sadly, Wikipedia is not an anarchy, though it has anarchistic features. And Wikipedia is not a democracy, though it has democratic features. And Wikipedia is not an aristocracy, though it has aristocratic features. Also, Wikipedia is not a monarchy, though it has monarchical features.

 By the way, how Wikipedia maintatined at all? Thanks to the voluntary and meritocratic character of open content communities it is not surprising that leaders are expected to lead by example as their very leadership is founded. Although, the management system like that and power of collectiveness, the need for “dictatorship” arises from the difficulty inherent to decision making in large, voluntary, and consensus-oriented communities.

Let’s think about the ideal leadership not only for wikipeidia but our real life from small unit to large scale thing.

W12 Blog Topic : Discuss Reagle's chapter 6

What's leadership in Wikipedia?

Wikipedia does have a few leaders historically including Wales and Sanger who are cofounders of Wikipedia. Also, there are people who want to be in that stage who demonstrate themselves as an outstanding editiors. Besides,  the “Administrators” page in Wikipedia stresses that everyone is an equal editor. Then, who is leader in Wikipeia and is that even possible to have leadership in this wanna-be utopian space?
I think leadership is inevitably needed in Wikpedia as Reagle mentioned at the beggining of this chapter. The point for me is that who would take it. Although there are founders of Wikipedia, I don't think they can be involved in any decision-making of articles and issues. I would rather prefer to have some group of experties who contributed in a specific field of Wikipedia and are selected by people. However, the basic should be same which everyone is an equal editor. Only when certian disagreements happen, and people can't make any conclusion after long history of arguing, that experties could join to help it finished.

W9

For wikipedia's openness, there is a claim in its motto : Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that 'anyone' can edit. People wonder what 'anyone' actually mean.
According to the article, it is saying "Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. The fact that Wikipedia is an open, self-governing project does not mean that any part of its purpose is to explore the viability of anarchistic communities. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism."
For Neutral point of view, the wikis (article editing people in Wikipedia) are expeted to have a neutral point of view. It is not a debating place, it is an encyclopedia people make altogether. To get this transparency view, the editors use talk page. I have an experience also about Bab burger. I thought it is nice to edit as a new term of burger, however some people thought I am making some commercial advertisement and it is simillar to rice burger. We have been through a discussion and decieded to put bab burger as rice burger. If I do not have any will to have commercial edits, I found that some might think in different way such as bab burger and the beautiful store editing. Our team went through tough times for editing Beautiful store. It was hard to persuade and try to explain it is non-profit company and finally it worked! also got a barn star. To write in neutral point of view is important, but it is also important to tell other people and learn how to explain the article what I am editing is non-commercial and trying to wirte in neutral point of view. Even though it is late to do this assignment, if anyone in this class have an experience like I had, would like to share and think about which are not allowed(?) to write about. For example, the wikis thought Beautiful store is not allowed(?) to edit because they thought it is a commercial. How do you all think?

W11

Consensus : general agreement from Wiktionary. Other definitions are  “without active opposition to the proposed course of action.” consensus is overwhelming agreement “which does not mean unanimity.” It works by small meetings and it is the most important thing in Wikipedia. Since wikipedia is well known for collective intelligence and small talks(interaction between wikis). It is sometimes hard to have a perfect consensus since there are a lot of people have different thoughts and for the high quality articles, we need to discuss if there are some arguments with the subject. Also, consensus is the preferred method of making decisions at wikipedia.
It is a simple word, but can be explained in complex way. It is an another concept of decision making way of the Internet usage. I heard that Roman people used to have discussion at Foro Romano where they talked about politics and other things. I think it's a bit simillar to consensus. Now we chat on Facebook like talk page in Wikipedia. Whenever we have a team project, we make our own group page on Facebook and upload files and discuss and we make a consensus. How would be for the future consensus? We still would use the way of methods in present, however since more methods of consensus is found, I wonder what would it be like in the further future. Have I understood concept of 'consensus' right?

Week 11 assignment

Week 11. Discuss Chapter 5

       In this chapter, the author identified the difficulties of consensus decision making, and its meaning and practice for collaboration at the English Wikipedia. Also this chapter said that Wikipedia is an example of a historic means of community decision making in a new context. In particular, openness brings a new salience to the challenges of consensus practice. After I read this chapter,I think it's good way to voting and polling when there had a problem in Wikipedia. It is hard to make consensus about some issues. I think Wikipedia’s method is appropriate solution. Also I think gathering people’s opinion is easy but consensus decision making is hard. Because they have different thinking about some issues and articles. So I’m concerned about people’s consensus decision making. 

W11

I sympathize with “Wikipedia is a fascinating example of a historic means of community decision making in a new context.” in Chapter 5

 we can look wikipedia' efforts for consensus. Wikipedia minimize disputes in many people thought of Openness and intervene through Polling and Voting

 Wikipdia is making information space of worth unlike other social platform. the present in wikipedia is the nationally collected space of large information. I think gradually Consensus will be made in participation of many people.

 New space is made in information society. Users try to maintain this space. That is different future as compared with facebook, twitter.

[Week11] Discuss Chapter 5

Wikipedia have been attempt to organize knowledge like other encyclopedia by using disambiguations to users. At this point we can meet up with so called 'consensus'. Then we must to reach the question about 'what is consensus?' Following the definition of consensus is overwhelming agreement which does not mean unanimity. We can get some values such as inclusive, participatory, cooperative, egalitarian etc. In this reason,  consensus is one of the most important factor of wikipedia which well known for openess, collective intelligence, share. Meanwhile consensus seemed contains both democracy factors and dialectic. Reaching to the goal which is well organized is the final destination of consensus, if it has other branch view point,though.

We all know that wikipedia has variety system that make consensus. Discuss on talk pages, WikiProjects, Polls are all the system what i would like to talk. It seemed that Wikiprojects has been well operated however, only a few users who are interested on that topic attend to wikiproject. To get high quality of consensus, lots of users are compulsory needed. So how can we gather people who can participate on the way of consensus?

W11 Blog & Reading

Is is really possible to have consensus in Wikipedia?

There are some facts in the world that you can deny, for example, we can't argue about when a certain being was established or which books a certain author has written. Wikipedia has its best function in this sense. However, there are still some controversial issues which we even don't know what is truth about it. People argue not because they like it or dislike it, but because they believe something about is is true whereas others don't. In this matter, how can we deal with that information in Wikipedia? It is good that Wikipedia has at laeast open space for it. If that's good enough to be in public space, we can write and add information. But as mentioned in Reagle's chapter 5, a large number of editors support it, and a large number of editors oppose it in Wikepdia. Would that really possible to have consensus? What I think is that it's barely possible to do it and even we don't have to have consensus on some issues. I just want Wikipedia to keep trying to have itself neutral like now and let people decide what to believe and follow. I think that's what Wikipedia is about.

[Week 10] What would make writing on Wikipedia easier for me?

Week 10 : What would make writing on Wikipedia easier for me?

Frankly speaking, writing something for the first time, what we called, create is really difficult. Not only creating something, but editing or adding on somthing what is already existed. Both of two things are needed fully understand about the topic. In this reason, although we have plenty of information for citation, reference we have to feel difficult to writing on Wikipedia, surely.

However, there are hundread of thousands edit or created new contents every seconds, every hour, every day. Why the attributors still keep writing then? Do they have any plenty of information about their topic? Do they majored every single topic? The answer is No.

The important point what we have to point out is here. There is the concept of  “Trust” in wikipedia. let us think about wikipedia articlet. Is that article still reamined without any edit or delete? No! countless users whom include unregistered users, visit every single article, participate on wiki-project. Without metioned working, there are lots of things to do for users.

So in my cases, i also have burden about writing down or editing, but I belive the other usres. It makes relieve my burden for any mistakes or errors.  

[WEEK10]

During the spring semester that I first met Wikipedia, I was very confused. It was hard for me to edit. As the time goes by, editing Wikipedia has been a part from my life. Furthermore, I am now proud of me. I am able to share new information and can help people to get knowledge in other languages by translating. Also, I was very happy to get a barnstar and it was an interesting experience in my life. It means more than just award. More likely, I am in Wikipedia's world (may call as a new country maybe?). I am Korean, also Wikipedian. For the technical problems, now I don't feel difficulty because there are many people who can help me solve the problems. The Wikis are the answer when editing articles. Only what I am having difficulty is writing in neutral point of view.

W10

What would make writing on Wikipedia easier for me?

Wkipedia has a various categories. To put it delicately, Wkipedia has every categories. When I am writing I commonly write interesting categories. I am easy to write information and to search related data in Wikipdia. also when I edit article, I can fast edit error in original article and freely talk with other user in talk page. on the other hand if I choice unfamiliar categories I should feel boring, slowly and lacking of motivation. besides I may get possibility searching missing information.  

Week 10 assignment

Week 10. What would make writing on

 Wikipedia easier for me?

sehyun oh

Before I learned about Wikipedia, I did not know what is Wikipedia and how could I use it. Actually I was not interested in Wikipedia before I took a lecture about Wikipedia. But after I learned how I write on Wikipedia, I became interested in editing on Wikipedia. At first time, editing some article was not unaccustomed work to me because I’ve never tried to edit or write something on the internet before. I was unfamiliar to me. Actually when I took Spring semester about learning Wikipedia, I was not interested editing on Wikipedia because it was too hard to edit for me. There are lots of rules, politics and other things that someone checked me in my editing. Also when I edited wrong, other editors wrote what I was wrong on my talk page. I felt so timid at that time. But after I tried to write on Wikipedia many times, I felt some gladness about editing on Wikipedia and became interested about Wikipedia. Also other's advice is helpful to me to edit many articles on Wikipedia. I’m still amateur editor on Wikipedia so I will try to learn about Wikipedia ardently.

W9

 

 I am remain on my memory, “Collaboration creates a shared meaning about a process, a product, or an event. Therefore, my use of the term collaborative culture refers to a set of assumptions, values, meanings, and actions pertaining to working together within a community.”

 so I think a shared meaning takes precedence than Neutral Point of View and good faith. If many people were sharing thinking and making value, view could naturally become Neutral Point. and I think Neutral Point made through arguments is best of Neutral Point.

W10 Blog Topic : What would make writing on Wikipedia easier for me?

I have to admit that Wikipedia itself has made pretty easy to add information and edit it with many tools and helpful guide. As long as we have access to Internet, have basic knowledge of how to use Internet, and are willing to learn by spending time to look at manuals or asking around others, it wouldn't be that big of deal to use it. Also, we can learn by checking how others are using Wikipedia and how articles are written and organized. If we don't know a template, we can simply copy and twist it. In fact, I like we can do those things.
For me, then, making myself easier to write in Wikipedia is something to consider in a different dimension. I don't think technical thing would be a problem for many of Wikipedians. It would be more like a matter of contents. So, I think it's good to live with Wikipedia. What I meant by that is when I am exposed to new knowledge or anything in my daily life, I need to connect them with Wikipedia on how to put that information in it. Also, checking newspaper and being aware of what's happening in the world would be essential to keep Wikipedia updated in a field of what I am interested in.

week9 assignment

[Week9] Discuss Reagle’s chapters 3-4

sehyun oh

     we already learned about neutral point of view and tried to get a neutral point by ourselves during the class. It was not easy to get neutral point of view but I think it is important on Wikipedia. Many people use Wikipedia, discuss about many issues, collaborate many articles and so on. As we learn before, Wikipedia is a collaborative culture  that asks its participants to assume two postures: a stance of neutral point of view on matters of knowledge, and a stance of good faith toward one's fellow contributors. I'm still difficult to get a neutral point of view on the internet but I 'm trying to write an article through the neutral point of view, I think if someone want to participate to edit Wikipedia, he or she try to get neutral point of view because it's encyclopedia and many people use it, get to know a new fact and collaborate with other people all over the world. Also, if people don't have a faith to others, that can not have a collaborative working because they don't believe who write a lie or the truth. So I think if Wikipedia contributors have the faith to other users when they edit an article, it will make a good article. As we saw this chapter, A productive contributor who cannot collaborate is not a productive contributor. 

[Week9] Discuss Reagle’s chapters 3-4

  In this article, we can find out two important factors (or it can be called ideology) for maintaining wikipedia. One is  ‘Neutral Point Of View’, and another is ‘Stance of Good Faith(Include patience, civility, humor)’. As we saw in our class, getting neutral point of view is really important. Because, all usuers who can edit each article has different background, circumstance that can be affect to one so every people is biased. In this reason, we have to self-disciplined for getting neutral point of view. The life of information is as same as fact of information.  Stance of good fatih to other users is also significant factor of wikipedia. There are thousand of hundreads of users using wikipedia at the sametime, so if we have agressive stance, there must be a fight each other. These two factors guaranteed the openess of wikipedia. Transparency, Non-discrimination, Non-interference are always with two factors what we talked.

  As we entered into information oriented society, importance of  on-line communication and community is growing up. However there is no concrete rules or any specific regualtion like wikipedia. Surely, wikipedia is also not perfect model of online community i think and it seemed needed more principle for developing,though, it shows the guide line of online community to us. I would like to discuss what is other factor of maintaining online community

W9 Blog Topic : Discuss Reagles's chapter 3-4

Wikipedia is known for the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and people think it's an open community which could be characterized by Open Transparency, Integrity, Nondiscrimination, Noninterference. However, there are people our there thinking Wikipedia is more like open culture than on open community. For me, Openness of 'open culture' itself includes more than above four of them. 

Open can be defined 
1. not restricted to a particular group or category of participants
2. characterized by ready accessibility and usually generous attitude

I think that open of an open community means closer to the first definition, because it sounds like an actually open physical place anyone can come and do thing whatever they want to do. But open of an open culture what I think of Wikipedia is close to the second definition. In Wikipedia, there is a collaborative culture that asks its participants to assume two postures: a stance of neutral point of view on matters of knowledge, and a stance of good faith toward one’s fellow contributors. I think that's what we should have to have open culture in our Wikipedia world. 

Having Wikipedia already open to people, it is our responsibility to reach the second definition of open culture and keep it ideally. We should be not only neutral, but also patient, civil, and be humorous. 

W7

W7 Why Free Culture matters?

 Everybody have freedom for sharing information and creating knowledge in information society. no matter how online make large society than offline society. free culture can talk and express frankly oneself thinking. because offline society don't telling many information online society make large society. If freedom was controlled now free culture in information society don't be made. Free culture make new culture and changes society. The culture in this day and age is world culture, not each nation.

 I think control need on the activity but free culture need in everything for large activity. a value is made in freedom and the value make new society. therefor Free Culture is important in information society. 

[week6]

It is little bit hard to define cultural globalization since there are lots to consider such as economical, religious,etc. According to Wikipedia, Globalization (or globalisation) is the process of international integration arising from the interchange of world views, products, ideas, and other aspects of culture.  Advances in transportation and telecommunications infrastructure, including the rise of the telegraph and its posterity the Internet, are major factors in globalization, generating further interdependence of economic and cultural activities.As we can see in this definition, culture is already related to globalization. 

I don't agree with Clifford Geertz which he was saying 'Culture is not a power, something to which social events can be casually attributed' if I understood it correctly. I think by causally attributed, it can be a power. For example, 

Jewish people has the power of enrolling in America's economy in variety of fields. Their thoughts, religion and other fields in capital things they earend from thoughts made a big power in America. We can say Jewish people has a big part of America's economical(?) system which is 'Power' in this time.

It was an interesting view that increasing global connectivity can be called the Third World. And some people understand globalization as a certain kind of culture's boundary. such as Americanism, westertnization. It is not quiet correct way to view connection between globalization and culture. than what else could be? I'm little bit confused about what I said above the article about Jewish people. I think it's a kind of cultural globallzation because many Jewish people are acting in variety of fields I think they are helping cultural globalization. did I understand it right?

[week7] Free culture? Free culture!

Until today, people understand about free culture that has copyright. It doesn't mean that no one can use it. Many people thinks it is free that the contents that they can easily find. And using free such as downloading musics, movies is illegal. Yes, it is illegal and somebody must have the copyrights for the contents. However, in other view, contents have made other meaning in today's society. Since technological things has been developed, the people who only knew how to accept and review the contents, they now know how to make, share and combine the contents. For example people like to videotape their short movies and upload in Youtube. It can be used as an advertisement. Furthermore, for instance Naver and Daum such portal sites upload their internet newspaper on line. The people who use the application or the websites may be influnced by the portal cites even though they did not want to be. No defeces if the people do not see the mass-media. For these reasons, people may loose their judgement which is true or false. They may have a big problem and in trouble.

[Week 7] : Why Free Culture matters?

 Free culutre is one of the most impact factor of information oriented age. As the technology is developed, there is no difference between the genuine and the copied. Jean Baudrillard who is french phiolosher maed the specific terms that what we called “Simulation”. This idea can be qualified with not only information but also art, music, movie, etc.  

 While we live in 21st century, we are on duplication society unavoidable. In that society, it seemed silly when we insist our right of something especially information or knowledge. For instance, Peter Higgs  who won a nobel prize of physics recently having been criticized beacuase although his idea was hint of development for physics,however, during last few decades thousands of other physicians have reseached that matter. But without any consider about that people’s reference, how higgs got the nobel prize.

 Likewise there is no host for information in thesedays. That is, Free culture is compulsory and inevitable concept in these year. Surely, copyright of specific information or any knowledge must be complied yet, mass information or free information have to be guranteed also.  

Week 7 assignment

Week 7 Topic. Why Free Culture matters?

sehyun oh

     Today's society is changing at a fast pace, technology is also developing in our society. So there are lots of free items such as music, news, book. We can share and use these free items whenever and wherever we want. Wikipedia is one of free contents in our society. This free culture is useful for many people but I think there are many problem about free culture. As we can get free contents easily, we can share to other people even though this content has a copyright. It is kind of infringement of copyright but many people don't recognize that this is illegal. In my case, I also enjoy using free contents such as music, book and news. Some contents has copyright, but I don't know which one has copyright or not because many people share it on the internet. This can be in legal trouble because some people earn money through copyright on the internet.

With technology getting better, many people can get free contents easily and the boundaries between free contents and copyright contents are collapsing. If this circumstance continue, this matter will create many problems in our society.

W7 Blog Topic : Why Free Culture Matters?

I was a bit surprised this morning when I found that  I was able to real actual newspaper through my mobile phone by chance. This is the world that we are living in now. We can get free music, free movies, free newspaper(not only internet news), free lectures, free books, and so on. It even seems to be an extra work to argue if we can get those free stuff.
I don't necessarily think Wikipedia is one of the main factor to make this free culture happen, but it is certainly one of the important thing we should look at when we think of free culture that we are facing.
People enjoy free culture of Wikipedia getting and editing information that they want. We already discussed that this doesn't come from any physical rewards. Before our technology has as developed as we know it today, there are still information our there, but somehow there are specific people who control the information. However, as technology has developed, it's not someone's possessions anymore. We all can make, edit and share. I think that's the biggest change which made free culture.
With understanding 'remix', the time is getting closer and closer when everything is from everything which means there wouldn't be anything new. When that time arrives, what's the point of owing and having them priced which will never be bought?

W6

How important is it to be civil online on the Internet?

 I am playing project about internet reply culture (malicious messages) in other class. we look many uncivil online in internet. this activities are mixed in various reasons. various reasons are simply fun, ideology, education, culture, nation and etc. and many people have the Yes points because of anonymity and freedom of speech.

 I think this importance is different in internet community' characteristic. SNS adding wikipedia is importance. wikipedia is place made many people. Collective Intelligence may have big effect in civil online. 

Week 6 assignment

Week 6- How important is it to be civil online on the internet?

sehyun oh

I heard about some issues about netizen's bad social behavior on the internet. Because of anonymity, many Netizens sometimes slander to other people on the internet. I saw that few people who were hurt by bad comment attempt suicide but some people who wrote about bad comments don't feel guilty about writing bad comments. I think it is important to be civil online on the internet. Internet is another society so I think it has to have stricter laws on the internet. Many people use the internet and sometimes they write some posts or comments on the internet even if it offend someone's mind. As I told you above, he or she who is hurt by hateful comments thinks of suicide or something bad thinking. And also internet is that people collaborate some working and discuss about issues not dispraise other people so we have to be good civil online on the internet.  

[Week6] How important is it to be civil online on the Internet?

How important is it to be civil online on the Internet?

 As we know, there are lot of rules and regulation for maintain our soicety. If each society even small community do not have any specific law, they are faced with mess up. Accodring to rule each persons act civil and polite becuase if they are not, there are only fight, quarrel.

 Likewise, we have to be civil on the on-line society. Within the framework of collective intelliegence, all users have to participate for gathering information, for debating about that information for even better results. But as we know well, if there are variety of people coming, there must be a quarrel with members. So managing that fight is one ot the most important work. It seems that way of managing are variety. Onething is “Be civil”

 By being civil we can get advantage when we using wikipeida especially such as has a neutral point of view. In this reason, wikipedia aquire its own value that anyone can edit and anyone can get information. Be civil does not only meaning of be polite, but also respect to other users. And there is one more important point is be civil or be polite is not an utmost attitute but the basic facotr.

W6 Blog Topic : How important is it to be civil online on the internet?

I looked up a dictionary to start this writing to know what exactly 'civil' is. Meriam-Webster learner's dictionary defines civil as 'It is polite but not friendly : only as polite as a person needs to be in order to not be rude'. So, let's begin with a question. Do we have to be civil on the internet, if so, how important it is? 

There was certain time when netizens's social behavior on the internet were issued. Because some of them attacked others with unproved information or for no reason. Especially in Korea, to be honest, our mind-set is not as developed as our technology and that has been a social problem. It's important to be polite in the real world but it's even more important to be polite, be civil on the internet, because it is an anonymous world. You can't see people face to face who you are taking with. So there is more possibility for what you type to be misunderstood. That's why you need to be extra careful. It's very easy to type whatever you think although it might look rude, and I understand it has more temptation to do so. However, it is the another world, and you live with them. What you type affect your world and you are also affected by that. You don't have to be extra friendly to be civil, but you need to be polite to others just as what you treated by others and that's same everywhere. 

Week5 Two faces of Wikipedia

Some people thinks wikipedia is not trustful. Wikipedia is not trustful because 'anyone' can edit. Since anyone who know how to use computer and internet, when people who put their personal feelings or biased opinions in article, its realibility is low. For example an article about Windows 8's editing page has been blocked temporaly because of people who against windows8's program review(rude?).

This is the news about windows8 in wikipeida.

http://www.zdnet.co.kr/news/news_view.asp?artice_id=20130503212021

and article about wikipedia that is not trustful.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/so-is-wikipedia-cracking-up-1543527.html

On the other hand, when people see the biased articles, the wikis are trying to fix them correctly. This is Wikipedia's strong point. The point that can fix right away when they found something wrong.

As a result, wikipedia is between trustful zone and untrustful zone which depends on people who write article about.

week5

Can we trust Wikipedia?

I think wikipedia has fast information and accuracy than some media. At first, I thought wikipedia has low accuracy because of a variety of prejudice. But wikipedia has trust through reliable reference. and it is having a fast flow speed of information because wikipedia is space made by many people (Collective Intelligence) If article were made by incorrect information many people would edit the article. But There is a danger. incorrect information is spread by large-scale population of realistic-looking. I wonder this point whether they can do anything for this point. 

[Week5] English Reading in Information Sociology – Understanding Wikipedia

Blog topic :  Can we trust Wikipedia?

 As we know there are variety realem and tons of information on wikipedia now. We cannot imagine how many users using wikipedia. Furthermore, we cannot figure out how they are thinking about evverything. In this reasons, wikipedia is always expose to danger of inaccuracy.

 However, from variety of using wikipedia, we can get what we called ‘collectiv intelligence’ Far more to become accuracy sum of informaiton or quantity of informaion is compulsory needed. That is concept of Big Data. It heared like contradictionary, yet the more information gathered, the clearer direction nature are deducted beacause when lots of information gathered, there must be remained variety of discussion angles. In fact this is core point of dialectic, thesis-antithesis-synthesis. By doing so each information improved automaticly. Finally we can get pure, accurate, high quality information.

 According to our class, we can regard wikipedia as a result of collective intelligence. we already discuss about power point of collectiv intelligence, there is no doubt to trust to wikipedia any more.

Week 5 assignment - sehyun oh

Week 5. Can we trust Wikipedia?

At first, when I learned about Wikipedia, I was curious that it could be run by editors on Wikipedia. But after I tried to use and edit Wikipedia, I became rely on information in Wikipedia. Because someone who saw my mistake wrote on my talk page and taught what I was wrong. I thought it was very a great help to my editing because I didn't know what part of my editing was wrong and my grammar skill wasn't good among Wikipedia editors. Before I saw someone's advice on my talk page, I doubted that there were experts on Wikipedia because everyone could edit an article in there. But after that, my thinking was changed that there were lots of editors who were professional editors. Also when someone edit or make an article, it must have references such as books, news and so on. It made me more reliable. So I think we can trust Wikipedia. 

W5 Blog Topic : Can we trust Wikipedia?

I was quite skeptical before about trusting Wikipedia. The face that anyone can edit made me think of that we can't trust everyone's information and their knowledge. However, the more I use Wikipedia, the more I think Wikipedia is pretty reliable. Since I started eddting Wikipedia pretty much every week, someone wrote a message on my talk page about my editing. He kind of pointed out my mistakes which I had made while editing, but it was more like advices I would say. That was impressive because I did feel that Wikipedia is alive and people in it are constantly not only adding information, but also checking if the information is correct. They are voluntarily eager to do further to make Wikipedia better place such as giving an advice to a new Wikipedian. I am not sure how many percentage of information is correct in information is right now, but I can certainly say that it will be getting more and more. Also, what else could we use instead of Wikipedia which is changing itself? Would an encyclopedia which almost never changes or is hard to update enough to be an alternative to rely on?

Week4

 1. Wikipedia is a place that people communicate and making different kind of views. However, neutral point of view is necessary in wikipedia. Collaboration of people's thoughts make a new means of culture in this centry of web.

2. There were some movements trying to make encyclopedia before wikipedia was created. Although some may have failed, wikipedia is still growing and building up the sources.

3. Mentioned in this article, about Encyclopedia Britannica, is it broader than Wikipedia? Does it have more information than wiki? Once, when I was on web researching, the results from Britannica came out. I could read about the research little bit because I had to charge. So, I couldn't find out not many of sources from there.

week4

1. summarize in your own words of materials you read

I summarized this reading to 3part. first, Wikipedia is both a community and an encyclopedia. it's mixture of community and culture. second, Wikimedia Foundation is the nonprofit organization. they tell human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. finally, wikipedia is a free and open source encyclopedia. and they has the inspiration about that.

2. Mention of any new, interesting, or unusual items learned

I am interesting about wikipedia' means. I read "“Wiki wiki” means “super fast” in the Hawaiian language, and Ward Cunningham chose the name for his collaborative WikiWikiWeb software in 1995 to indicate the ease with which one could edit pages. " I don't think this means before read.

3. Question, concern, Discussion angle

I want "Predicting the Future, Reading the Past" means. I understand "Reading the Past" and " "making the present" but I don't undertand "Predicting the Future". how it predict future?  

Week 4 assignment -sehyun oh

Week4 - sehyun oh

1) although Wikipedia is useful, popular, and permits nearly anyone to contribute,
the site is only the most visible artifact of an active community. Unlike previous reference works that stand on library shelves distanced from the institutions, people, and discussions from which they arose, Wikipedia is both a community and an encyclopedia.
Also it shows collaborative culture. It is important fact to understand Wikipedia.

2) After I read it I was surprised about birth of Wikipedia and another point of Wikipedia.
   Also it's impressed that many ancestors tried to make many encyclopedia before Wikipedia. After Wikipedia was born, people in the world can discuss themselves on the web and make information on Wikipedia.  So as I said, it shows collaborative culture in Wikipedia.


3) I was curious when I read chapter 1-2. Is this right that Wikipedia reached the top of encyclopedia in the world?   I think Wikipedia is currently developing and there are lots of mistakes until now. Of course, many people can discuss on the Wikipedia and they correct things. But I don't think Wikipedia is the top of encyclopedia yet.

[Week4] English Reading in Information Sociology – Understanding Wikipedia

1. summarize in your own words of materials you read

- The common goal of making enyclopedia is try to solve the problem of that what we called jig-saw puzzle and bring all the scattered and ineffective mental wealth of our world into something like a common understanding.

- In this reason, every encyclopedia remains open to corrective criticism. By doing so we can makes neutral point of view.

2. Mention of any new, interesting,  or unusual items learned

- Before the birth of Wikipedia, there are many try to make encylcopidia such as otlet’s permanent encyclopedia/ Wells’s World Brain/ Bush’s memex/ Nelson’s xanadu/ Project Gutenberg /  Interpedia project / Nupedia / GNUPedia.

- The specific terms that “realization of the universal encyclopedic vision” is regarded as success of wikipedia. We usually talk about vison, blueprint, plan, etc which is just remained.However Wikipedia try to aquire that and finally they did it. That point is compulsory required point to us including all kinds of company or any other kinds of group.

3.  Question, concern, Discussion angle

- According to chapter 2, we can know that there are also many encyclopedia whther concrete figure or not and Wikipedia is final stage of try to make encyclopedia for human being. In this point, we can debate “Is wikipedia reach to higher level of encyclopeida or is there any more factor, direction of improvement to high quality encyclopedia?

week3

Blog topic : Why do you think people use Wikipedia? Why do others write for it?

 Wikipedia have system for people all over the world. many people can edit wikipedia at any time, and anywhere. and they support many language. so inconvenience is minimized

Personal user can study interest field using wikipedia. They can get new information and remedy mistakes information that they have been.

Nation and company user offer information to people all over the world. other nation people attract their attention. and It is making easy approach nation and company to attraction. 

Week3

[Week3] Blog topic : Why do you think people use Wikipedia? Why do others write for it?

Maybe people wants to share their knowledge or give a present. Some people like to give a present. Gift Economy, I would like to compare with Wikipedia. When they give a present(knowledge), some people that received the present, they will try to give present(writing articles). By using Wikipedia, people socialize. Who wouldn't like a present? So, with this circumstance people make articles automatically(?) with their will.

In my experience, I didn't know why people write for the wikipedia and use. I was not a person who use Wikipedia frquently. Almost none. Whenever I asked people question about subjects I don't know, people would say, 'Google it!' 9 people out of 10 would recommand google. At that time, I didn't know anything about wikipedia. Nobody mentioned me Wikipedia. I thought google has an encyclopedia, and that was Wikipedia. Wikipedia solved vocabularies that I'm not familiar with.

Week2

Week2

1) Wikipedia is a place that people share and communicatie their thoughts and knowledge. They are seeking for a unique encyclopedia which people all over the would can talk about thier own culture. They make people to edit articles with thier own will with this message 'anyone can edit'. 

2) In my opinion, Wikipedia is very smart. I searched for the Wikipedia's history. They started officially in 2000. Wikipedia is more than encyclopedia. In my experience, when I tried to edit about Beautiful Store and other articles, I had a  very difficult time when editing. Some people in the world text me and gave me some opinions about solving problem. Even though we don't know each other, we could talk and even work on the project. Facebook is now an important? and the network service that most people use. I think Wikipedia has a similar roll to Facebook. It's 'sharing and networking each other'. They talk.

3) I found some similiarities between Wikipedia and Facebook. Is there any tool or part that Wiki has about social? networking?? (except talk page. I think some people can make friends in talk page;socializing)

[Week3] English Reading in Information Sociology – Understanding Wikipedia

Blog topic : Why do you think people use Wikipedia? Why do others write for it?

There is variety of reasons for why people participate in editing on Wikipedia. As we saw the material that in our class, Wikipedia users use Wikipedia for killing time or just joyful. Or there are the people who use Wikipedia for their intellectual satisfaction like us. Even some one may use freely Wikipedia as a encyclopedia that is main purpose of Wikipedia. Today I would like to talk about why more and more people use Wikipedia.

I would like to comparative Wikipedia for market. The market was established for sharing something. In the ancient time when money didn’t came out yet, people sharing their stuff what they need each other. From at that time, market has been changed their appearance. Big mall, department store, complex markets are variety of shape of market. If we imagine other paid encyclopedia such as Britannica as a department store, we also regard Wikipedia as a flea market. They has also common part of their skill that is contain information and selling stuff but Britannica have to pay for using it ,department store is clean, fancy, neat but Wikipedia is free to use, flea market is feel comfortable, friendly.

Some more advantage of Wikipedia and flea market than Britannica and department store are makes people using Wikipedia for over decade and gave chance to improve, progressive. 

W3 assignment- sehyun oh

W3 assignment                                                     

 Why do you think people use Wikipedia? 

Why do others write for it?

sehyun oh

     Before I use Wikipedia, I thought that people didn't know about Wikipedia so much like  me. But after I learned about Wikipedia and edited some articles, my thinking was changed. I felt that why people like to use Wikipedia.  There are a lot of information in Wikipedia and Wikipedia arrange articles by topic. So if I want to see some articles, I can search easily. Another points are that many people shared information that they know and discussed what they think about an article in Wikipedia. Wikipedia has lots of editors all over the world. Editors know more information about their country than other people who live in different country. And  they can share information easily through Wikipedia compared with other encyclopedia. Moreover People's thinking is different so when they discuss about some topic, they can see others' thinking. I also liked this point that I can see others' thinking because I can know different part of my thinking. That's why I use Wikipedia and write for it. I think others are same reason as me. 

W3 Blog Topic : Why do you think people use Wikipedia? Why do others write for it?

If I define 'use' as an only action searching for and finding information,  I think people use Wikipedia because it's easy to access and free. They can get any information they want if Wikipedia has. With that being said, the large amount of information that Wikipedia has can be one of the main reasons that people use for searching tools. In fact, we can easily see information/articles on Wikipedia come up at the very first line of our search output when we use search engine. Even though we don't go to Wikipedia directly, we will ended up finding ourselves on Wikipedia.

I still think the main reason that people write and edit on Wikipedia is joy of sharing what they know. It's like the feeling we share what we know with our friends. I guess people want to share that with as many people as possible, and Wikipedia provides a perfect place for that. Also, people might want to contribute sometimes on Wikipedia if they've always taken things from it, maybe because of guiltiness or showing of appreciation, I would say.