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