Extra posting/How was the medieval korean society structured?/Heo seonyeong/허선영

How was the medieval korean society structured?

While we don't know exactly when the Middle Ages were, it is often said to be from the fifth century until the beginning of modern times, when the Western Empire collapsed and the Great migration of the German people in European history. In Korea, it starts with the mid- to late-30s of the Three Kingdoms Period, where Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla existed. Perhaps the end was the Unified Silla, which passed the Goryeo Dynasty and was in the early Joseon Dynasty. Therefore, it was basically a society where kings existed, considering the Korean society of Unified Silla and Goryeo, which existed during the Middle Ages. People were able to get into government service according to their talents and status. There were times when the powers of bureaucrats were reduced to strengthen the royal authority, but there were times when bureaucrats ruled the king with all their power. The throne was largely handed over to his son. The status of the aristocrats is the same. The children of the aristocracy were the children of the common people, and the children of slaves were the children of slaves. There were cases of the aristocrats collapsing, but most of the posts were handed over to their sons. As for this status, the Joseon Dynasty changed a little. On the authority of women and men, there is also a statement that unlike the Unified Silla Period, women's power was strong during the Goryeo Dynasty.

Extra posting/Is modern democracy really "the will of the people"?/Heo seonyeong/허선영

Is modern democracy really "the will of the people"?

Democracy is that the sovereignty of the state is in the people. Modern democracy is where all citizens are equally involved in politics. However, it is difficult to ask the opinion of all the people in all matters. Therefore, we will choose a representative. People pick representatives who they think are in accord with, and delegates do politics on behalf of the people. Of course, the important part is that all the people give their opinions. However, the majority of the work will be handled by representatives and often contradicts the will of the people. In this case, the people can tell the delegates what they mean, but it doesn't work. Of course, like the last presidential impeachment, the nation's democracy seems to be well preserved. However, there are many areas where many people are feeling frustrated and distressed. However, it seems difficult for the representatives to resolve this issue. Is it true that a democratic society is a society in which many, not a few, are struggling? Is it right for the delegates to hear the voice of the people? I don't think the politics that the delegates are doing reflects the will of the people or the real democracy.

Extra posting/What keeps society?/Heo seonyeong/허선영

What keeps society?

Maintaining society is a role for each individual. In addition, each individual is linked to another individual and interacts. That is, each individual has a role to play, and the performance of that role affects others. When everyone has done their part, society builds a stable structure. I think it is also the culture and law of society that creates and controls people's roles. Laws define what should and what should not be done and help people act. Those who go beyond their prescribed behavior are harming others and becoming evil in society. Culture is the rules that they have learned and felt and kept throughout their lives. Therefore, they can create and control their roles with the law.

Extra posting/When do you think globalization started?/Heo seonyeong/허선영

When do you think globalization started?

Even in the middle of the 13th century, East Asia and Europe were connected. Can we call it globalization because of the existence of exchange? We need to know the concept of globalization first. In order to understand globalization, we must first understand globalism. Globalism is the interconnectedness of countries on many continents. Globalization refers to the growing process of this globalism. I think globalization began in the 19th century. Prior to the 19th century, exchanges between countries were costly to transport and had high trade barriers between countries. Thus, although there was exchange, it was not very active. Most of the goods in exchange were luxuries. However, many changes have been made since the mid-19th century. Transportation has become very easy through railway networks and steam boats. Also, industrial capitalism took root with the completion of the Industrial Revolution. It was an era of economic freedom. Since then, in the late 20th century, globalization has been growing. There has been an increase in manufacturing plants and large companies with local nationality across the country. With the emergence of these active and emerging developing countries, globalization has grown. Now it is hard for a nation to stand on its own. It depends on many countries, and when one country is shaken, other countries are shaken. I think true globalization is in the late 20th century, but I think the beginning of globalization is in the 19th century.

Extra posting/Why study history?/Heo seonyeong/허선영

Why study history?

“A nation that forgets its past has no future”

I don't know the exact source, but I know what Sir Winston Churchill said. Korea's Shin Chae-ho also left a similar saying. A nation that forgets its past has no future. Throughout history, we return the mistakes we made. In the process, we may grow and not repeat the same mistakes in the future. We need to learn history to make a brighter future. History will be a good stepping stone to the future.

Extra posting/Volunteer retention, burnout and dropout in online voluntary organizations: stress, conflict and retirement of Wikipedians/Heo seonyeong/허선영

Volunteer retention, burnout and dropout in online voluntary organizations: stress, conflict and retirement of Wikipedians

I interpreted this as a commentator about a volunteer speaking here. Wikipedia is a non-profit organization that cannot benefit anyone who provides knowledge. However, many people are happy to keep their information up to Wikipedia's rules. I think these are volunteers. These Wikipedia are just one of the websites for the public. But Wikipedia is the only non-profit website in the world. It is also the most popular website in the world and hundreds of thousands of volunteers are creating Wikipedia. Why do people serve Wikipedia? Currently, the number of volunteers in Wikipedia is decreasing. Usually, a few active volunteers have contributed many times more than others. However, they are sometimes offended by other people's perception of Wikipedia, and they end up having trouble editing. It is also a problem that it is difficult to find work for new people. Wikipedia will disappear over time. Wikipedia still contributes a lot to society. But people don't appreciate Wikipedia. They don't even know that it is a non-profit organization. I think it's safe for volunteers to be able to get

Extra posting/Teaching with Wikipedia in a 21 st century classroom: perceptions of Wikipedia and its educational benefits/Heo seonyeong/허선영

Teaching with Wikipedia in a 21 st century classroom: perceptions of Wikipedia and its educational benefits

Over the past decade or more, Wikipedia has been a reference for students in developed countries. But so far, many educators are reluctant to Wikipedia. Educators do not believe the information on Wikipedia, they are biased. Of course, many negative views have changed positively, but they are still lacking. Wikipedia can show students a wider society. There are numerous papers, and students can develop critical thinking about them with motivation. This advantage should not be prevented by teachers. Especially anecdotal claims are completely groundless. Rather, there were more positive opinions when investigating the accuracy or quality of the actual Wikipedia. Wikipedia is better than the traditional encyclopedia. Wikipedia is a non-profit organization that is available to everyone, even for free. Where can we find a better encyclopedia than this? Is it right to continue to criticize Wikipedia?