Week 4 - How to add references to a Wikipedia article (Yerin Lee)

How to add references to a Wikipedia article (Yerin Lee)

* How to find reliable sources for research

* What are the pros and cons of using NAVER vs. GOOGLE for research purposes.





First of all, Wikipedia is described as a socially developing pro-social community rather than a profit-seeking one. Members of the Wikipedia community share common practices and norms. It is a culture of cooperation. The Wikipedia community can be more understood as "pro-social" in that it is intentional, spontaneous, and acts that benefit others. Of course, even if the intention is good, it cannot be unconditionally supported. However, features such as open content/transparency/integrity/non-discrimination/intrusive, and various technical censorship enhance reliability and gain a lot of support. This is supported by the FOSS movement.

According to the professor's lecture, we can increase the reliability of our data with reliable sources. To tell you how, it's data like Google Scholar and Google Books. Of course, not all of these can be said to be reliable. However, they are copyrighted and the data is scanned and uploaded accurately. By adding rankings, indexes such as SCI and SCCI, and quotes from authors and publishers to our Wikipedia, we can create more reliable articles.

On the other hand, there are things you shouldn't do. It is predatory publishing and self-publishing.To explain a predatory publication easily, it may be called trick editing, which means editing regardless of the quality of the subject or content. Editing to justify unverified ideas or arguments is also an example. Self-publishing is the publication of one's own books, starting with the writing of manuscripts and everything from editing, printing, and copying.

If you ask for pros and cons of using Naver or Google for research purposes, it can be divided into those who oppose it and those who support the opinion and view of various people as they are not professional scholars. The former are those who show support for the credibility of testing that comes from public and huge procedures. The latter are people who know how important the views and ideas people have in a changing society and how much help they can get from them. In other words, those who express their support for collective intelligence. I sympathize with both positions. However, I agree with the latter a little bit more. I didn't take the class a few times, but I knew how much collective intelligence affected me, and I felt many representative cases while looking for them outside of class. There is no problem using Google and Naver for research, but wouldn't it be a matter of scholars themselves to give credibility by verifying their sources and organizing papers?

There is something I want to talk about. This is a discussion that came to mind when we talked about reliability, but are there any students who have been deleted from Wikipedia? I thought it was reliable, but it was deleted.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

W7: GFC book notes By 'William S. Kowinski' , 'Cory Doctorow','Piotr Konieczny' and 'Paul Youngquist'/ 진신

Summary- William S. Kowinski: The true exception is the innovative success of a collaborative effort that has prime online reference work called Wikipedia. This book is not meant to be biography or reportage, but contemporary ethnography or study of a culture. What this book does well is describe how Wikipedia works and what issues have arisen.  It's short on drama and personality，and so it's probably destined to be a source document. Since that seems unlikely, this may remain the best opportunity for learning about this remarkable project. Summary- Cory Doctorow: Reagle makes an excellent case that this assumption of good faith is particularly powerful when it comes to dealing with those who lack good faith — it creates positive outcomes for arguments with everyone from neo-Nazis to political hacks who're whitewashing their boss's entries. Wikipedia's most fascinating and unprecedented aspect isn't the encyclopedia itself — rather, it's the collaborative cu...
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

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