Week14---My Wikipedia Edits —CUI ZAN

 link1

1) Summary 

This week I worked on the article for Wen Tak Chuen, a missionary based in Macau. The article was short and already had the basic info about his background and work. But there were no sources at all, so I added a few. I used some institutional websites and public references.

2) Editing Thoughts

I wasn’t really planning to edit this article—it kind of happened by accident. I was just reading around and came across the page for Wende Quan, and noticed that there wasn’t a reference confirming that he was a missionary in Macau. Since I’d seen his name mentioned in some historical sources before, I figured I could just add a citation. I used source code editing this time instead of the visual editor, and honestly, it wasn’t as complicated as I expected. It gave me a bit more control, and even though I only added one reference, it felt like I was actually helping clean things up a bit. Nothing fancy, but still a solid contribution.

3) One Thought

Looking back at the pages I edited earlier in the semester, I think I’ve started to develop more of an eye for small things. I used to just skip over missing links or references, but now I actually feel like—if I see it, I might as well fix it. The reference I added this time isn’t something most people would notice, but I noticed, and that made it worth doing. Wikipedia is a shared space, but there’s something oddly satisfying about quietly patching up a sentence or confirming a fact. It’s not about making a huge change—it’s more like adding one thread to keep the whole thing together.

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