W2. Why Wikipedia? / Jung jisoo

Why Wikipedia?


1.Summarize - Why do you think Wikipedia is becoming more accepted?

Wikipedia is a collaborative tool software platform, a free online encyclopedia open to everyone. Because it is shared for so many participants to edit, we can understand modern society and various cultures through Wikipedia. These Wikis are increasingly used in businesses, governments, and non-governmental organizations.

So, why is Wikipedia becoming more accepted?
I looked at the reason through ‘Naver Post’ article. In this article, it is mentioned that it becomes more correct and more abundant as time passes through verification by many users. It is also said that such information is shared, activated and developed together. In other words, I think that continuous verification had a great influence on improving the reliability of information.

Reference: NAVER Post, “Industrialization of collective intelligence, the power of open collaboration”, http://naver.me/F7CxvwG8


2. An interesting point I learned – Example of Wikipedia use

It was interesting to me that Wikipedia's reliability is improving. When I do research for assignments, I still don’t refer to Wikipedia very well. So I did a little search to solve my curiosity about Wikipedia's reliability. In the process, I read blog article from the Ministry of Education titled "Science, Wikipedia citations increased." 
As a result of artificial intelligence analysis, it was revealed that the number of citing Wikipedia contents in the papers by scientist is increasing. It is also mentioned that the number of cases cited by researchers as well as students through Wikipedia is increasing. Through this, I was able to confirm that the reliability is increasing. 

Reference: NAVER Blog, "Science, Wikipedia citations increased.", https://blog.naver.com/moeblog/221106644600


3. Discussion angle

As I searched about ‘Wikipedia’, I found that Wikipedia’s reliability has improved a lot. However, there was still a lot of distorted information in Wikipedia and there was a problem with reliability. So I’m curious how much other people trust Wikipedia.

Comments

  1. Han SuyoungMarch 20, 2021 at 7:08 AM

    Likewise, I don't trust Wikipedia's information. Although Wikipedia has a vast amount of information, I think that it is in line with the saying that it becomes the domain of non-professionals in the fact that it is written in a group and anyone can write it freely.
    In this regard, I was able to find a paper that investigated the use of Wikipedia as a source of knowledge.

    According to the study, “Out of the papers included in the Web of Science citation index for the past 10 years, 282 papers cite Wikipedia. Among academic papers, very few papers cite Wikipedia. 87 cases (15.1%) of cases of using Wikipedia, which can be regarded as behavior, as the main basis or data source for thesis were also found(지난 10여년 간 Web of Science라는 인용 색인에 포함된 논문 중에서 위키피디아를 인용하고 있는 논문은 282개로 학술논문 중에서 위키피디아를 인용하고 있는 논문은 극소수인 것으로 파악되었으며 기존에 여러 연구자들에 의해 위험한 행동으로 간주될 수 있는 위키피디아를 논문의 주요 근거 혹은 데이터 소스로 활용한 사례도 87건(15.1%)으로 조사되었다)(p.14)” (심원식(Wonsik Shim),변제연(Jeayeon Byun),and 김민정(Minjung Kim). "학술논문에서의 위키피디아 인용에 관한 연구." 한국문헌정보학회지 47.2 (2013): 247-264.).

    Through this, it can be seen that the information on Wikipedia is not trusted enough to not be cited in academic papers. It seems that it will take a little more time to trust Wikipedia's information so far.

    Reference: (심원식(Wonsik Shim),변제연(Jeayeon Byun),and 김민정(Minjung Kim). "학술논문에서의 위키피디아 인용에 관한 연구." 한국문헌정보학회지 47.2 (2013): 247-264.).

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

W10 : Can we think of some example of how Internet has changed our culture? / 박소민(SOMIN PARK)

 1. Summary  The Internet has changed our culture so much. First, through the Internet, we can meet people regardless of distance. People in each country communicated over the Internet and reduced the barriers to distance by creating relationships. Also, the Internet has let us stay away from books. When we want to find expertise, we can get it from Wikipedia or Google. Even information in books can be obtained through e-books, reducing access to libraries and paper books. 2. Interesting point Further to the above, our brains are gradually degenerating because we don't have to remember information. We are constantly interrupted by SNS notifications ringing on our phones when we do something, so our concentration and attention are being reduced. Furthermore, the ease of obtaining information online is causing our short-term memory to decline. 3. Discussion point I think the Internet has made it easy to sever a relationship with a person because we can meet another person simply...
Read more

W7: Review of Good Faith Collaboration / Suyoung Han

  Review of Good Faith Collaboration 1) Summary – Wikipedia from an ethnographic perspective: focusing on collaboration within the community Wikipedia, which is called the world's largest encyclopedia, is an open community and is becoming more and more solid with the participation of various people, conflict, and resolution. In this respect, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. attempted to explain the culture that takes place within Wikipedia. The book describes how Wikipedia was created and what it values. In particular, he described Wikipedia in a book from an ethnographic point of view, and focused on cooperation within the community. 2) Interesting Point – Wikipedia is simple, but not I realized that Wikipedia is not just a site made up of community activities, but rather a collaborative activity that is carried out concretely for the goal. Before I read the book, Wikipedia was an encyclopedia site that only gave me information (even I didn't trust the information), and I thought ...
Read more

w9: Its often said by teachers that “Wikipedia is a good place to start, but a bad place to finish” why? LiuXinlei

 Its often said by teachers that “Wikipedia is a good place to start, but a bad place to finish” why? In terms of the comprehensiveness of the content, we have to admit the advantages of Wikipedia. For example, Wikipedia is undoubtedly my first choice when I don't understand an event at all. It is convenient, fast and comprehensive, and I can spend the least time to understand the whole content of this fact as comprehensively and neutrally as possible. But in the process of in-depth learning, Wikipedia can only be used as an introductory content, because in learning we need to understand this fact as much as possible, and we need to understand the different views of scholars in different regions on the same event. There will be different theories. Some theories seem to be not neutral or even discriminatory or ethnographic at present (such as Marxism and Marxism in China), and it is not suitable for Wikipedia. Be shown. In short, Wikipedia has a very low threshold for users. It assu...
Read more