Reading13---CAI YAYU

  1) Summary

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that provides knowledge by categorizing and organizing various topics. Wikipedia uses a classification system to group different topics and entries together, making it easy for readers to browse and find relevant information. For example, Wikipedia uses tags to tag entries, making it easier for readers to search and browse for specifically tagged topics. Tags can describe the nature, source, quality, etc. of an entry.

2) Interesting point

Wikipedia's classification system is dynamic, evolving and adapting as entries are added and edited. This allows for better adaptation to new topics and areas of knowledge. If you are looking for a specific topic on Wikipedia, you can use the search function or the category links in the navigation bar to locate the relevant entry.

3) Discussion

Do the categories in Wikipedia give convenience?

Comments

  1. Lee EunsukJune 1, 2023 at 11:26 PM

    I think categories are convenient for information because you can see the concept categories.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Geonwoo Lee(이건우)June 16, 2023 at 2:33 AM

    I think the categories are convenient enough. If you are categorized in the process of searching, you can proceed with the search more easily. It is also because you can get new information by referring to other materials in similar categories.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reading 3——CHENXINLEI

  1）  Summary   This article discusses the advantages and disadvantages of Wikipedia's "openness" features. The author gives a detailed description of these five open characteristics.( Open content 、 Transparency 、 Integrity 、 Nondiscrimination 、 Noninterference) “ A central aspiration in the pursuit of a universal encyclopedia is increased access to information: an opening of opportunity and capability to anyone with a desire to learn. ” Open communities allow everyone to learn or express their thoughts on Wikipedia.Open knowledge community is not only an important gathering place for knowledge innovation and sharing, but also a source of wisdom.In such an environment, users are content sharers, creators, and providers of wisdom. “ people don’t even agree about which is which. ”   However, the malicious controversy brought about by such an environment cannot ignore a problem. Everyone's ideas are different, and it is because of the open environment that it is easier...
Read more

Reading7——HE YUNONG

  1. Summary After reading this article, I understand that Wikipedia articles must have reliable sources, and the opinions in the sources should be neutral. Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. 2. Interesting points News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source.  I think this is important because some news headlines are written to grab the reader's attention quickly and briefly; their news content may be exaggerated or lack context, and even sometimes contain sensational claims. 3. Discussion points Do you know how to test reliable sources?
Read more

Reading 4

 1. Summary The article argues that understanding Wikipedia requires appreciating its community and collaborative culture, but also recognizing the challenges it faces from personal differences and external threats. Despite its collaborative nature, Wikipedia has been shaped by authorial leadership, with an informal benevolent dictator guiding the community and mediating disputes. However, this leadership role can be challenging to balance, as new responsibilities and authority may arise. The article uses examples, such as Sanger's reflections on his departure from the community and discussions about Wales's role, to illustrate the delicate balance of leadership in the Wikipedia community. 2. Interesting As an AI language model, I do not have personal opinions, but I can identify some points that may be interesting to readers. One interesting point is how the author describes the culture and community of Wikipedia and how it has been shaped by authorial leadership. The idea of ...
Read more