Week9-Recent Wikipedia edits LYU YANGCHENG2021008895


This week, I chose to edit the entry "Protest Songs". Although this topic may seem unpopular, it is actually closely related to music, social movements, and historical memory, and contains rich narrative clues. I added some supplements about artists and song examples, especially those related to the anti-war and civil rights movements. At the same time, I also added keywords related to social movements according to the classification. This edit made me re-understand that music is not just entertainment, it can also be a language of action and resistance.

Interesting point of view
While editing the content, I observed that a large number of repeated tags appeared in the entries, such as "LGBT rights movement", "sexual revolution", "feminist movement", etc. were listed repeatedly. Although this may be the result of different users' additions, it also reflects a question: when we over-stack keywords, will it weaken the clarity and readability of the entry? This makes me realize that although collaboration is free, it also needs to find a balance between organization and integration.

Thinking this week
This editing experience reminds me that the knowledge The construction of Wikipedia is actually a "public writing". Everyone can participate, and every modification is a description of the world. When we write the entry "Protest Song", we are actually making a choice about "what is worth recording". Therefore, rather than just adding new content, it may be more important to look back: how this knowledge is constructed, classified, and how it is constantly rewritten.

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