User:Kjiwoo9022/sandbox

Week4 Article Topics and Sources

Topic: Open By Default

- I focused on backtracking where the term started populating and originated from

- (Opinion) the term is one of the core governing principle of current Liberal government, but the discussion around it long predates the seating of current government.

- the name Don Lenihan (Senior Associate at Canada 2020) kept popping in my search query since 2011 so far.

On May 5, 2016 the Interim Directive on the Administration of the Access to Information Act was issued to take quick action on revitalizing access to information. The new Interim Directive enshrines the principle of "open by default." It also directs all government institutions to ensure that whenever feasible, requestors will receive information in the format of their choice, including modern and easy to use formats. source: https://openparliament.ca/committees/ethics/40-3/41/david-hume-2/	05-May-16
Canada's Action Plan on Open Government 2.0  - Creating a Culture of "Open by Default" - was Conservative gov at this time source: https://openparliament.ca/committees/ethics/40-3/41/david-hume-2/	Aug-14
(Don lenihan) - Open Government Engagement Team  (appointed by the ministry of Ontario) activity highlights : https://www.ontario.ca/page/open-government-engagement-team#section-1	24-Dec-15
Ontario Open Government Initiative launched in 2013 Ontario's Open Gov Initiative Milestone: https://www.ontario.ca/page/open-government Premier Letter: https://www.ontario.ca/page/lets-open-government-new-possibilities	21-Oct-13
David Hume (individual) participating in "Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 2nd, 2011" recommends then Chair of Committee, Shawn Murphy to talke to his colleagues in BC governments with regards to British Columbia's Government 2.0 plan, which includes references to open data and open information - he also references to Don Lenihan as where he got most of his idea from  source: https://openparliament.ca/committees/ethics/40-3/41/david-hume-2/	02-Feb-11
More info about Don Lenihan source: http://canada2020.ca/release-dr-don-lenihan-joins-canada-2020/
Bill C-58 (An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts) currently in house committee block access to information if request is deemed to be "frivolous or vexatious" source: https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-58/	27-Sep-17
Liberal's Election Platform - New Plan for a strong middle class Fair and Open Government - 2nd agenda "open by default" appear in the very first item of this agenda source: https://www.liberal.ca/trudeau-unveils-liberal-platform-for-a-strong-middle-class/ https://www.liberal.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/New-plan-for-a-strong-middle-class.pdf	05-Oct-15

Week3 Wikipedia article evaluation on Gakgung (Korean Bow)

This page is an evaluation of the Wikipedia article on Gakgung (Korean Bow)

Q1: Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Considering there are only a handful of Korean historical manuscripts translated into English, and the fact that the practice of Korean traditional archery is dying even in its home country, I find all the information contained in the page relevant and informative, though there are some parts of the article that place the emphasis on the less relevant information, such as the epistemology of the word Dongyi, and the existing controversy between whether the term was coined originally to refer ancient Koreans, or to refer to diversified minority groups that lived east of the mainland China. I can't say this is completely irrelevant information because the Chinese character for "yi" of Dongyi contains pictographic element of "bow". And some historians even use this information to support their argument that the practice of Korean archery date back from the earliest days of ancient Koreans. However, in the given structure of this Wikipedia article, it seems harmless to take away this section to accurately inform what Gakgung really is.

Q2: Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

To an English reader, the article may seem very biased towards praising Korean archery in historical context. This is largely due to the fact that the handful of historical manuscripts available for study was written in Royal courts. Keeping historical records had traditionally been the state-funded activity in medieval Korea. This has both pros and cons in terms of historical accuracy. They are largely accurate, even meticulously detailed in recording dates, geographies, involved parties, and even the weather. However, the general narratives behind historical manuscripts can sometimes be very nationalistic. Another issue with back-tracking the history of Korean archery is that medieval Korea, particularly Joseon dynasty, had the culture of treating martial arts as inferior practice to studying literature. As a result, they did not keep the records on martial arts practices and weaponry very well. The few sources that we can get those information from are largely the heroic portrayals of the historical figures, such as kings and famous generals, which is why the Wikipedia page contains the story of a king shooting two arrows, having first arrow knocking out the enemy's helmet, and the second piercing through his mouth - an anecdote that are often used to praise how Koreans were good at archery from the earliest days.

Q3: Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

What is missing is the records from the neighboring countries of medieval Korea, on how they themselves assessed the Korean archery practices at the time, and how effective Gakgung technology was in drawing them out during wars. Also the Wikipedia page talks about how effective they were at winning some battles during Imjin war, but does not discuss how devastatingly Joseon lost against the Japanese army who employed the matchlock arquebus during the war.

Q4: Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

Out of 6 citations, 3 of them do not redirect to the proper source. 2 of the remaining 3 come from the personal blogs of Korean archery practitioner, and another one actually come from historical manuscript of Ancient China. These sources do support the claims being made, and are in accordance with the popular understanding among the Korean archery practitioner.

Q5: Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

It seems lots of information on this Wikipedia page come from translating the works of Korean archery practitioners. The structure of this page is two-part: explaining the historical context behind Korean traditional archery, and describing Korean bow's physical specification. With the historical context, some information do beg a question. For example, the page states that Prince Heinrich from Prussia suggested Korean king to make the archery into the national sport, but was not sourced. At the same time, lots of information that are in line with popular understanding are not sourced as well. This is actually the problem that the entire community faces. However, there are several key historical manuscripts missing, that could have been cited to support some of the claims in this page, such as Goryeosa (for the claims on invention of pyeonjeon) and Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty (for the claims on Imjin war, and Korean archery as a national sport). The page also claims that Korean archery as a national sport populated under Japanese Occupation, but this is only half a story. Before national archery gained Imperial support, the Imperial governors imposed the aggressive reformation on Korea, and one of the integral part was to weaken existing Joseon Army. Thus, during this period, Korean archery was banned nationally, and it survived only thanks to the fact that Joseon King pressed hard on keeping a few Royal archery sites, so that at least Royal family could practice it, only later to bring back practice of archery nationally.

Q6: Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

Information contained in this article are quite in accordance with the contemporary understanding from Korean archery practitioners, but it could employ some more pictures to describe archery accessories such as thumb ring, as well as for the raw materials that are used to make Gakgung.

Q7: Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

There is one interesting comment from an anonymous user, that the page title should be Gungdo (which refers to "the way or practice of national archery") rather than Gakgung. One reason being Gakgung does not translate for 'Korean bow' at all. It translates for 'horn bow'. Another reason is that since there is no existing English page on "Korean archery" practice, a broader concept that utilizes Gakgung, the person might have thought it was more appropriate to dedicate the page for "Korean archery." The modern practitioners use Carbon fiberglass bows a lot with very similar techniques, so "Korean archery" bring home more meaning for them than Gakgung per se.

Q8: How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

The article is part of three C & starting rated level projects: Martial Arts, Korea and Military History, which also attests to the fact that this subject come from quite minor culture in English speaking country. However, in Korean page, it is even worse, there is no project or talk going on. Instead, Korean internet users are more fond of namu.wiki, an independent wiki site, with two pages that are dedicated for 'Korean Archery' and 'Gakgung' per se.

Q9: How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

In one way, there is definitely the difference between the English page and Korean page, due to the fact that subject carries more cultural importance in its originating country, Korea. However, for a page that has a very few talk comments, the page has more 500 pages of edits & changes from contributors other than the original author. This could either indicate a edit war or continual contribution of people sharing same minor culture.