Week7-Wikipedia editor-CHEN SIYU (진사우)

 Summary:

Before starting to edit, I was unfamiliar with the format and standards of Wikipedia. For example, the neutrality of entries, avoiding subjective vocabulary, and standardizing citation formats. These requirements, while increasing the difficulty of editing, also made me realize that editing is not just about writing; it is a responsible process of disseminating knowledge.During the editing process, I saw other users' modification histories for the entries and how they communicated their suggestions on the "Discussion Page." This open collaboration mechanism made me realize that Wikipedia is not a static knowledge base, but a constantly updated and refined "living entity."

Interesting points:

The most interesting part was that I tried to modify an entry about local history, only to find that someone had added it just a few hours later, pointing out that the sources I cited had a more authoritative version. This gives me a sense of "knowledge relay": you throw a message, and others might catch and improve it, ultimately forming a more complete content.


Discussion:

This experience made me ponder: how can we truly assess the credibility of a piece of knowledge information? On an open platform, everyone can speak up, but this also means that the quality of the content varies widely. Perhaps that is why we should learn how to verify information and read online knowledge with a critical eye.


Overall, Wikipedia editors not only enhanced my skills in information filtering and writing but also transformed me from a "reader" to a "contributor," truly engaging in the process of knowledge production. This shift in identity is what I consider to be the most valuable gain. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Introduction to the blog

This blog is a digital forum where students from Collective Intelligence in Practice: Understanding Wikipedia at the Hanyang University in Korea (2025) will discuss their weekly readings and activities. Each week you are expected to post a blog post on our blog and make a comment on another student's post. You can do so on one of the following three topics: a) You can blog about the readings for the next week. As you are expected to do the assigned readings FOR the lectures they are assigned to, you are expected to post your blog and comments BEFORE that lecture. An ideal commentary should be about half a page in length (~200 words), divided into three clearly labeled sections in which you: 1) summarize in your own words of materials you read; 2) mention any new, interesting, or unusual items learned; 3) identify at least one question, concern, or discussion angle that is either problematic in some respect or could have been elaborated more. This question is likely to be incor...
Read more

Week 1. My Recent Wikipedia Edits - Jeong seolah (정설아)

I made several edits to the Wikipedia page for 'Daegu'.  Daegu, located in the southeastern part of South Korea, is the third-largest urban area in the country, following Seoul and Busan. With a population exceeding 2.3 million, it is the fourth-largest metropolitan city in South Korea and the second-largest in the Yeongnam region after Busan. Often referred to together with the surrounding North Gyeongsang Province as Daegu-Gyeongbuk, this region is home to over 5 million residents. Known for its rich history and vibrant economy, Daegu stands as a key player in South Korea's cultural and industrial landscape. Below is a summary of the changes I contributed. 1) Summarize and link Sights Section:  - Improved clarity by changing “mountains keep many traditional temples” to “the mountains keep many traditional temples.” Mosque Controversy Section:  - Simplified a sentence by removing “and of the authorities.” Festivals Section:  - Made phrasing smoother by changing “tho...
Read more

Week4 - Review about the readings for the next week. - Jo HyeonSeong (조현성)

 1. Summarize in my own words of materials. The book is primarily about the openness of Wikipedia. Openness means that anyone can participate in the creation and editing of articles without any qualifications. Openness can be a double-edged sword. While it means that you can edit without having expert knowledge of a topic, it also means that you can participate even if you have expert knowledge. For experts, articles written by non-experts can come across as inaccurate knowledge, which can anger experts. This anger can also be a catalyst for Wikipedia to continue to improve. However, articles edited only by non-experts can cause misunderstandings and convey incorrect information, so openness can be considered a double-edged sword. In fact, it sometimes causes some conflict, such as Wales' negative stance. Openness also means freedom from copyright, which means anyone can take it and use it anywhere. That is why the knowledge of non-experts can have greater impact. That is why appro...
Read more