Blogging through Wikipedia (2026)

 This week’s class mainly focused on practical Wikipedia editing. The key task was to write summaries for video game–related articles based on reviews, as well as to improve article quality and credibility through the use of reliable sources. Although there are already many video game articles on Wikipedia, a significant number of them lack sufficient citations and professional evaluations. Therefore, we are expected to enhance their reliability by adding high-quality sources. This made me realize that editing Wikipedia is not only about “writing content,” but more importantly about “verifying content.” In terms of finding sources, I learned how to use Wikipedia’s “Reliable Sources” list to filter and evaluate information. This tool compiles a large number of recognized websites and media outlets, making it very helpful in determining the credibility of information. Compared to English sources, reliable sources in Chinese and Korean are relatively limited, so in practice we need to...

 This week, I mainly focused on improving the quality of citations in Wikipedia articles, especially by adding references to sections that lacked sources or had insufficient citations. I worked on strengthening the credibility and verifiability of the content by incorporating reliable news reports, academic materials, and information published by official institutions. During this process, I realized that far more content required citations than I had initially expected. Many statements that seem like “common knowledge” still require clear sourcing under Wikipedia’s editing standards. The most challenging part was finding sources that meet both criteria: relevance to the content and reliability. Sometimes, I could find sources that matched the meaning of the text but were not sufficiently authoritative; in other cases, there were reliable sources available, but they did not directly support the specific statements. This made the process of searching and selecting sources both time-...

  This week, I became more aware of how important sources and citations are on Wikipedia. Before editing, I usually paid more attention to the content itself, but while making edits this week, I realized that information without reliable sources can easily be questioned or removed. One thing I found interesting is that not all websites are considered acceptable sources on Wikipedia. For example, personal blogs or unofficial websites may contain useful information, but they are often not reliable enough for citation. Because of this, I had to spend more time checking whether a source was trustworthy before adding it to an article. I also noticed that adding citations is sometimes more difficult than writing the actual content. Editors need to think about where the information comes from, whether the source is neutral, and whether other people can verify it later. This made me realize that Wikipedia editing is connected closely to research skills and information literacy. One questio...

Assignment 1 I generally prefer to use AI, such as ChatGPT, because it is fast, convenient, and easy to understand. AI can quickly summarize complex topics and present them in a simple way, which is helpful when I need a quick answer or when learning something new. For example, when studying English grammar, I can ask AI to explain a rule and give examples instantly instead of reading long explanations. This makes my learning more efficient and less overwhelming. However, my choice depends on the situation. While AI is good for speed and simplicity, Wikipedia is more reliable for academic work. It provides detailed information, clear structure, and references that can be checked. For example, when writing assignments or checking important facts, I prefer Wikipedia to ensure accuracy. Overall, I usually start with AI to understand the topic quickly, then use Wikipedia for more reliable information. Assignment 2 I think AI should be used for Wikipedia, but in a limited and careful way. T...

  Assignment 1: When I search for information I usually prefer using AI over Wikipedia, but it really depends on what I need. AI is fast, convenient and can explain things in a simple and personalized way. For example, when I was studying sociology and trying to understand "Goffman’s theory", I used AI to break down concepts like “front stage” and “back stage” into easy explanations with examples from movies like The Truman Show. It felt like having a tutor guiding me step by step. However, I still rely on Wikipedia when I need more detailed and reliable information. For instance, when I was working on a project about influencer marketing, I used Wikipedia to read about the history and definitions of influencers, because it provides structured content and references that I can trust and even cite in my assignment. I think the best way is to combine both. I often start with AI to quickly understand a topic, then use Wikipedia to check facts and explore deeper. This combination...

 Assignment1: When you search for information, do you prefer to use AI or Wikipedia? Why? In my opinion, the choice between AI and Wikipedia depends on the nature of the task. If I am starting a formal research project, I definitely prefer Wikipedia. Its biggest advantage is the "References" section at the bottom. It provides a map of credible sources that I can actually cite in my papers. It feels like a stable "anchor" in a sea of information. However, if I am trying to understand a very complex or abstract concept for the first time, I prefer AI. Tools like ChatGPT or Gemini act like a personal tutor. They can simplify difficult jargon into "plain English." While Wikipedia gives me the facts, AI gives me the intuition. Ultimately, I use AI to learn and Wikipedia to verify. Assignment 2: Should AI be used to create Wikipedia articles? Read https://slate.com/technology/2023/01/chatgpt-wikipedia-articles.html and https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7bdba/ai-i...

  1. Summary After reading these sections, I learned that creating a short Wikipedia article about a notable book requires basic information, clear writing, and reliable sources. Editors should explain why the book is important and include references. I also learned that Wikipedia is written by “Wikipedians,” which are volunteers from different countries who work together to improve articles and share knowledge online. 2. Interesting Points I found it interesting that ordinary people, not only experts, can become Wikipedians and contribute to articles. I also learned that even a short article needs reliable sources and proper structure. Another interesting point is that Wikipedia depends heavily on teamwork and community participation to keep articles updated. 3. Questions or Discussion One question I have is how Wikipedia decides whether a book is “notable” enough to have its own article. I also wonder if volunteer editors sometimes disagree strongly about article content. Anot...

  1. Editing Wikipedia in Practice: Creating a Short Article About a Notable Book Creating a short Wikipedia article about a notable book requires research, neutral writing, and reliable references. I learned that even a simple article should include basic information such as the author, publication date, summary, and cultural significance of the book. One interesting point is that Wikipedia does not allow personal opinions or reviews, so the writing style must stay objective. I also found it unusual that not every book can have its own article because the book must meet Wikipedia’s “notability” standards. This made me think about how Wikipedia decides what knowledge is important enough to include. 2. Understanding Wikipedia: Who Writes Wikipedia / Wikipedians Wikipedia articles are written and edited by volunteers called Wikipedians. I learned that Wikipedians come from many different countries and backgrounds, including students, teachers, researchers, and ordinary internet us...

After reading this article, what struck me most is that Wikipedia’s notion of “openness” is far more than the simple slogan of “anyone can edit.” Rather, it is an ongoing process of balancing freedom and order, as well as ideals and reality. As a student accustomed to receiving structured knowledge in an academic setting, I used to view “openness” in a rather idealistic way, equating it with unrestricted participation and absolute equality. However, this article made me realize that a system capable of continuously producing reliable knowledge actually depends on rules—and even a certain degree of “non-openness”—to sustain itself. For example, the principle of “Ignore all rules” is itself a rule. This seemingly paradoxical design reflects a form of practical wisdom, much like group projects in university, where some structure is necessary, but too many constraints can stifle creativity. At the same time, in order to protect openness, Wikipedia employs mechanisms such as page protection...

 This article analyzes Wikipedia's form of leadership: benevolent dictator. While Wikipedia is open and values consensus, its founder, Jimmy Wales, is called a benevolent dictator and has a strong autocratic power. This is "authorial leadership" which is based on the contribution and trust of leaders in the community and serves as the last bastion in times of emergency or conflict. In addition, this article demonstrates the contrasting leadership differences between cofounders Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales. Unlike Sanger, who left because of conflict while trying to establish explicit rules and editorial powers, Wales compared himself to a "constitutional monarch" and usually chose to respect the autonomy of the community and intervene at critical moments. Accordingly, Wikipedia's governance has come to have a mixture of meritocratic, anarchic, and democratic, which could pose a risk of a fork, where projects could be separated if leaders abuse their power.  ...

  This week, I spent more time observing how different editors interact with each other on Wikipedia. Before, I mainly focused on making edits myself, but this week I started checking revision histories and discussion pages more carefully. It was interesting to see that Wikipedia articles are not created by one person but are constantly changed and negotiated by many editors. One thing I learned is that even when editors agree on the general topic, they may still disagree about sources, wording, or what information should be included. Sometimes one editor adds content while another editor removes or changes it later. At first, I thought this meant people were “fighting” over the page, but now I think it is also part of how Wikipedia tries to improve article quality. I also realized that communication between editors is very important. Good editing is not only about writing information but also about explaining edits clearly and respecting other contributors. This makes Wikipedia fe...

 In this essay, Wikipedia is explained in relation to consensus. Wikipedia is built under the principle of consensus, not as a simple majority vote, but as a process of coordinating diverse opinions to produce a result that is broadly acceptable. To manage this process, admin and policy exist. Although this may not be considered a perfect form of consensus, Wikipedia is maintained through a combination of these elements, including the authority represented by admin and policy.   I was already aware that Wikipedia is generally created through the voluntary contributions of its users, and that policy exists to maintain its basic structure and prevent vandalism. However, I was not aware of the existence of admin. This raises an important question: what exactly is the role of admin, and if they were to lead Wikipedia in the wrong direction, how should ordinary users respond? This seems to require further discussion.

  Chapter 4 examines the paradoxes of openness in Wikipedia. While the site’s motto promises that “anyone can edit,” this openness is not absolute. Problematic users can drive good contributors away, yet they can also inspire excellent articles. Wikipedia draws inspiration from Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), emphasizing transparency, integrity, nondiscrimination, and noninterference, though rules like “Ignore All Rules” show that complete freedom is unrealistic. The chapter distinguishes between open content—materials licensed for sharing and modification—and open communities, which rely on social norms, collaboration, and shared practices to maintain trust and accountability. Wikipedia’s success depends on balancing these ideals with practical governance, sometimes creating tension between openness and control. I found the comparison between software and knowledge particularly striking. Unlike code, knowledge cannot always be objectively verified, which explains criticisms ...

Week 2 : Understanding Wikipedia-FENG YUANCHEN This week’s course introduced the importance of Wikipedia and its role as a high-quality source of information. It also explained how editing Wikipedia can help develop practical skills and improve information literacy. Wikipedia is a non-profit project supported by volunteers from around the world, and its content quality has, over time, reached or even surpassed that of many traditional encyclopedias. In particular, when working with wiki software, contributors are required to provide information that is verifiable, neutral, and free from personal bias. The core activity of the course is to participate in editing Wikipedia by conducting research or translating content to create or improve articles. During the class, I created my own project page and carried out many hands-on editing practices in the following sessions.

1. Summary After reading these sections, I learned that making weekly edits on Wikipedia helps users improve articles step by step. Editors can fix grammar, add information, update sources, or make small corrections regularly. I also learned that a good Wikipedia project outline is important because it helps organize ideas clearly before editing. An outline usually includes the topic, main sections, sources, and goals of the project. 2. Interesting Points I found it interesting that even small edits on Wikipedia are useful and can improve article quality over time. I also learned that planning with an outline can make editing easier and more organized. Another interesting point is that Wikipedia projects often require teamwork and clear structure so editors can work together more effectively. 3. Questions or Discussion One question I have is how editors decide which articles need the most edits. I also wonder if making weekly edits becomes difficult for users who are busy or new to ...

  1. How to Make 10 Weekly Edits on Wikipedia Making weekly edits on Wikipedia helps users improve articles step by step and become more familiar with the editing process. I learned that edits do not always need to be large because even small changes, such as correcting grammar, adding references, or improving formatting, are valuable contributions. One interesting point is that regular editing can help maintain article quality over time. I also discovered that Wikipedia records every edit in a user’s contribution history, which makes participation easy to track. However, I think some beginners may focus too much on the number of edits instead of the quality of their contributions. This raises the question of how editors can balance productivity and meaningful improvement. 2. How to Make a Good Outline of Your Wikipedia Project A good Wikipedia project outline helps organize research and editing clearly before starting the article. I learned that a strong outline usually include...

 This week, I was primarily working on adding reliable references to Wikipedia articles, focusing on content that lacked or did not have a citation. In particular, I focused on increasing credibility by adding reliable news articles and other references to existing content. Here is the link I edited.   During this editing, I learned that more articles actually require citations for a variety of reasons than I thought. The most difficult part of adding citations to articles like this was to satisfy the suitability of the content and the reliability of the source at the same time. In the process of finding sources that are relevant to the content, there were cases where they match the content of the sentence, but the reliability of the source was low, while there were cases where reliable sources existed but did not directly support the content. As such, it took a lot of time and I found it difficult to find materials that could meet both the content and the source.  ...

  This week, I made 12 edits to Wikipedia. Most of my work focused on improving the structure and adding content to existing articles. For example, I added tables of contents to some pages, expanded a few sections, and made small adjustments to make the overall organization clearer. I also linked key terms to other relevant Wikipedia pages using internal links, which helped make the connections between different topics more visible. Through this process, I realized that even small changes, like adding links or reorganizing sections, can make an article much easier to read. At the same time, I noticed that quite a few articles still lack proper sources, which affects how reliable they are. From the class activity, I learned how to add citations to sentences without references, and it gave me a clearer understanding of why verifiability matters. This made me wonder: in actual editing practice, compared to adding content or improving structure, how much importance should be given to ...

This week I edited Wikipedia ten times this week.I encountered a challenge: existing references did not fully support specific arguments in the text. To maintain the article's credibility, I replaced the insufficient sources with more authoritative ones from official institutions and national news agencies. This experience reinforced my understanding that responsible editors must prioritize the accuracy of evidence, not just word count. Since my project involves Chinese culture on English Wikipedia, providing clear translations of non-English metadata was crucial. I focused on building bilingual citations and translating headings to ensure the information was verifiable for a global readership, regardless of language barriers. I also performed some routine maintenance work, such as standardizing text formatting and internal links. While these adjustments may seem minor, they are essential for ensuring a professional presentation and usability of the pages.

  This week, I continued editing Wikipedia pages and spent more time reading the editing guidelines and checking how other editors write articles. Compared with the previous week, I started paying more attention not only to the content itself but also to the writing style and tone used on Wikipedia. One thing I found interesting is that Wikipedia strongly emphasizes neutrality. At first, I thought editing mainly meant adding more information, but I realized that the way information is written is also very important. Some words may sound normal in daily conversation, but on Wikipedia they can appear too emotional, too biased, or too subjective. Because of this, editors often need to rewrite sentences in a more neutral and factual way. I also noticed that different language versions of the same article sometimes focus on different details. Some information that appears important in one language version may be missing in another version. This made me think about how culture and perspe...

This blog takes the concept of faith as its central keyword and explains collaboration within Wikipedia. Wikipedia is built through users’ contributions based on good faith . However, while good faith sounds ideal, it is not a perfect principle, as it faces real-world problems such as abuse and vandalism. Therefore, good faith is not absolute, and continuous adjustment is necessary in order to create an ideal Wikipedia. I was already aware that Wikipedia is sustained by users’ voluntary contributions, but it was interesting to understand this in relation to faith . However, as mentioned in the text, this principle is not flawless. Thus, further discussion seems necessary on how Wikipedia can move toward its ideal form without this principle being exploited.

 The author emphasizes that Wikipedia is a natural continuation of humanity’s long-standing pursuit of knowledge rather than an isolated phenomenon. From the early 20th-century vision of the “World Brain” to the development of modern digital networks, humans have continuously sought ways to organize and integrate universal knowledge. The real breakthrough of Wikipedia lies not in its ambition, but in the organizational form it has discovered to realize that ambition—a collaborative culture based on “assume good faith.” This suggests that technology itself is merely a tool; what truly drives knowledge production is how participants build relationships with one another and how they treat each other. Upon reflection, this makes a lot of sense. Technology is only a tool—what truly keeps Wikipedia running is that thousands of strangers are willing to sit down together and thoughtfully discuss how an article should be written. Moreover, the author does not portray this kind of collaborat...

  In the third week of Wikipedia editing practice, I gradually adjusted my editing thinking. From the beginning, I mainly focused on the number of edits completed to pay more attention to the quality, stability and actual value of editing. This week, I consciously avoided some popular articles that I had edited before and chose some relatively unpopular and low-attention pages, such as niche video games, local schools and some less well-known people or culture-related articles. In addition, in the process of searching for information and adding citations, my understanding of "reliable sources" has become more specific and practical. At first, I tend to use some websites that look complete, but in practice, I find that such data aggregation or community-based platforms are often not accepted by Wikipedia. In contrast, sources such as official websites, mainstream news media and published books are more authoritative and easier to be recognized by other editors. This process ma...

This chapter explores the long-standing human ambition to create a “universal encyclopedia” a system that gathers and shares all human knowledge. Beginning with Enlightenment thinkers, who believed that knowledge could unite humanity and improve society, the text traces how this vision evolved through time. Early pioneers like Paul Otlet and H. G. Wells imagined global knowledge systems, but their ideas were limited by the technology available. Later developments, including microfilm, hypertext, and early Internet projects such as Project Gutenberg, Interpedia, and Nupedia, attempted to realize this goal but faced challenges in coordination, technology, or structure. Ultimately, Wikipedia succeeded where others failed by combining a clear vision with simple, practical technology—the wiki—and an open model that allowed mass collaboration. One of the most interesting ideas I learned was Otlet’s “monographic principle,” which breaks knowledge into small, flexible units—very similar to how...

 The idea of collecting and organizing all human knowledge sounds like an impossible goal, yet it has been a dream shared by thinkers and scholars for centuries. This chapter helped me realize that Wikipedia is not simply a website created in the digital era, but the result of a much longer historical effort to make knowledge accessible to everyone. One of the most surprising things I learned is that Wikipedia’s success was not primarily driven by sophisticated technology. Many earlier projects attempted to build universal knowledge systems, but they often struggled because of complicated structures or limited participation. Wikipedia succeeded by adopting a simple editing platform and an open model that encouraged ordinary people to contribute. This demonstrates that successful knowledge-sharing depends as much on human cooperation as it does on technology. Another concept that caught my attention was Paul Otlet’s “monographic principle,” which proposed organizing information into...

This week’s videos and readings mainly focused on the purpose of Wikipedia and how communication works within the platform. The materials explained why Wikipedia has become such an important source of information and how users interact through features like talk pages. I learned that talk pages are not just for casual discussion, but are an essential tool for collaboration, where editors explain their changes, discuss disagreements, and build consensus. What I found most interesting is that Wikipedia relies heavily on communication between users rather than strict top-down control. Instead of having a single authority deciding what is correct, contributors negotiate meaning and accuracy through discussion. This makes the platform more flexible, but also more complex, since it depends on users acting in good faith. One question I have is how effective this discussion-based system is when there are strong disagreements between editors, especially on controversial topics.

 When I think about the Internet today, one of the most interesting changes is how knowledge is created. In the past, information on the Internet mostly came from organizations, experts, or official publishers. But with the development of Web 2.0, the Internet became a place where ordinary people could also contribute knowledge. One of the best examples of this change is Wikipedia and the idea of wikis. A wiki is a type of website that allows users to create and edit content directly in their web browser. The word “wiki” means “super fast” in Hawaiian, which reflects how quickly information can be added or updated. This simple editing system makes it possible for many people to collaborate on the same page over time. Because of this, knowledge is no longer produced only by experts but by communities of contributors from around the world. Wikipedia represents a major shift in how encyclopedias are created. Traditional encyclopedias were written by selected experts and published as...

  1. Summary After reading these sections, I learned that references are very important in Wikipedia articles because they help prove that information is reliable. Editors can add references by linking books, websites, or articles as sources. I also learned that reliable sources should come from trusted places such as newspapers, academic journals, or official websites. Good research depends on checking whether the information is accurate and trustworthy. 2. Interesting Points I found it interesting that Wikipedia requires sources for most information, especially for facts and statistics. I also learned that not every website is considered reliable. Personal blogs or random social media posts are usually not good sources. Another interesting point is that editors need to compare different sources instead of trusting only one source. 3. Questions or Discussion One question I have is how editors decide which sources are the most trustworthy. I also wonder if some reliable sources ...

  1. How to Add References to a Wikipedia Article Adding references is an important part of editing Wikipedia because it helps prove that the information is reliable. I learned that editors usually add citations using books, journal articles, news reports, or official websites. One interesting thing is that Wikipedia has special citation tools that can automatically format references. I also discovered that articles without references are often marked as needing improvement. This shows how strongly Wikipedia values verification and evidence. However, I think beginners may struggle with citation formats and understanding which sources are acceptable. It could be helpful if Wikipedia provided simpler tutorials for new editors. 2. How to Find Reliable Sources for Your Research Reliable sources are necessary for both academic research and Wikipedia editing. I learned that trustworthy sources usually include academic journals, books from respected publishers, and well-known news orga...

 This week, I updated the latest information on the "Reception" section of the "Cookie Run" and "Cookie Run: Kingdom" articles on Wikipedia. The records I edited can be found here . Specifically, I added descriptions of indicators such as the game's award history, sales, and download numbers to each article with reliable references.  When I was editing this article, I found the process of acquiring it interesting by looking for information such as the award history and the number of downloads of the game that I would not be interested in when I was simply in the position of a user playing the game. In addition, in this process, I thought that I should accurately convey the reception of the game as an editor who communicates information to others beyond the users who play it.  I believe that updating this information to a game on Wikipedia can be an important basis for judgment that can help users who are or are planning to play the game. But if the gam...

 This essay introduces Wikipedia not simply as an online encyclopedia, but as a space where people from different countries communicate and collaborate. At the same time, it explains the philosophy behind Wikipedia and describes the kinds of people who participate in these activities.   One of the most interesting aspects of the text was the repeated mention of the word “nazi.” In this context, it does not refer to the historical Nazis, but rather to aggressive people in online discussions. I found it interesting that the term is used metaphorically to describe hostile behavior on the internet. The essay suggests that thanks to various norms, Wikipedia has been able to create a space for cooperation rather than aggression, which I think is an appropriate comparison.   However, since Wikipedia is ultimately a place where people communicate with each other, conflicts and aggressive language are likely to occur. Therefore, I believe that there should be further dis...

 This week, I made 10 edits to Wikipedia articles. In these edits, I mainly improved existing entries by adding small pieces of information and adjusting the structure of the content. I looked at some more complete articles of the same type on Wikipedia and used them as references. I compared them with the articles I was editing to see if any important sections or information were missing. I then added some tables of contents and expanded certain sections. During this process, I realised that the quality of many Wikipedia articles can vary quite a lot, with some entries often lacking useful sections. At the same time, I also noticed that the content of the same article is not entirely consistent across different language versions. Some language versions are relatively complete, whilst others only contain a short introduction. This made me realise that the level of editing activity and the focus of different language communities may influence the completeness of an article. Therefo...

 This week I have completed ten edits on Wikipedia .At the beginning of the course, I felt somewhat uncertain about editing Wikipedia.When I first opened the editing page, I saw many codes and symbols that were unfamiliar to me, which made the process seem complicated. After spending some time exploring the platform, I discovered that Wikipedia also provides a Visual Editor. This tool allows users to edit pages in a way that is similar to writing in a regular document, which made the editing process much easier for me. I began with small contributions such as correcting punctuation and adding links between related pages. Through this experience, I realized that contributing to Wikipedia does not necessarily require writing large sections of text. Even small edits can improve the quality of an article and contribute to the community. One practical skill I learned this week is how to include an edit summary when saving changes. The summary briefly explains what has been modified a...

  During this week, I made   18 edits on   Wikipedia , including   15 edits in English articles check here  and 3 edits in Vietnamese articles  check here . Most of my edits focused on improving the clarity of the content. I added new information, inserted images, and expanded some abbreviations into their full forms so that the articles would be easier for readers to understand. Through this editing process, I realized that even small changes can improve the readability of an article. I also learned that editing Wikipedia requires attention to accuracy and clarity so that the information remains reliable for readers. This experience helped me better understand how collaborative platforms like Wikipedia allow people from different backgrounds to contribute and improve shared knowledge.

  Wikipedia is one of the most widely used sources of information in the world, and Joseph Michael Reagle Jr.’s   Good Faith Collaboration   explains how it developed and why people can work together on it. Wikipedia is not just an online encyclopedia; it is also a community of volunteers who write and edit articles from all over the world. Its main goal is to freely share knowledge with everyone, continuing the ideas of earlier projects, such as Paul Otlet’s attempt to organize all knowledge and H. G. Wells’s “World Brain.” Later innovations like Nupedia, Project Gutenberg, and open-source software also helped create the conditions for Wikipedia. One interesting point is that Wikipedia relies on both openness and shared rules. Anyone can contribute, but the community uses administrators, policies, and discussion pages to manage conflicts and maintain quality. Contributors work together, discuss ideas, and try to reach agreements on articles, which shows how collaboration...

Wikipedia has become one of the most widely used sources of information in the world. The reading from Good Faith Collaboration by Joseph Michael Reagle Jr. explores how Wikipedia developed, how its community works, and why collaboration is at the center of its success. What makes Wikipedia interesting is not only the information it contains, but also the social system behind it. One important idea discussed in the reading is the vision of Wikipedia: a world in which everyone can freely share knowledge. This vision reflects the long history of attempts to create a universal encyclopedia. Before Wikipedia, thinkers and innovators imagined similar projects. For example, Paul Otlet attempted to organize all human knowledge through a universal bibliographic system, while H. G. Wells proposed the idea of a “World Brain,” a global system for sharing knowledge. Later technological developments such as digital computers, the internet, and early projects like Project Gutenberg and Nupedia help...

During this week, I made 15 edits on Wikipedia and also created a new personal sandbox. Most of my edits focused on adding new content and translating information between different language versions of articles. Through this process, I tried to make the content clearer and more accessible to readers from different language backgrounds. In addition, I created a new sandbox to practice editing and organize my ideas before publishing them on the main article pages. The sandbox allowed me to test formatting and translation structures more carefully, which helped me avoid mistakes in public articles. This week’s editing experience helped me understand that translation on Wikipedia is not simply changing words from one language to another. It also requires attention to accuracy, context, and neutrality so that the information remains reliable and consistent with Wikipedia’s standards. Overall, this week’s work helped me improve my editing and translation skills, and it also gave me a deeper ...

During this week, I made several edits on Wikipedia. My main work was adding citations to some sentences that lacked sources in order to improve the reliability of the article content. For example, I added citations from gaming media websites for descriptions of the influence of characters in the Resident Evil series, and also supplemented official sources for the feature introduction of the Origin platform. These edits can be seen in my Wikipedia contributions history. User contributions for Wjyy1212 - Wikipedia  While editing these pages, I learned about some content I hadn't noticed before. For instance, how digital gaming platforms like Origin operate—players no longer need physical discs after purchasing a game but can download it directly through their account. This reflects the development trend in the gaming industry from physical distribution to digital distribution.In addition, the influence of game characters should not be underestimated.  I also have questions I wo...

  1. Summary After reading these sections, I learned that Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The “Basics of Editing” explains how users can improve articles by fixing mistakes or adding information. The Wiki Dashboard helps users track their edits and activities. “Wikis and Internet 2.0” shows how the internet became more interactive because users can create and share content online. 2. Interesting Points I found it interesting that Wikipedia saves the history of edits, so people can see changes made to articles. The Wiki Dashboard also seems useful because it helps editors manage their work more easily. Another interesting point is that Wikipedia is part of Internet 2.0, where users are active participants instead of only readers. 3. Questions or Discussion One question I have is how Wikipedia controls false information if anyone can edit pages. I also wonder if too many editors can make articles confusing. Another discussion point is whether Intern...