Blogging through Wikipedia (2021)

  Summary Aside from the question of absolute trustworthiness, Wikipedia is one of the most famous and popular websites in the world. So many people are already using it. And it means that people already believe Wikipedia. -- What is reliable? At this point, I'll tell you why Wikipedia is reliable, because it's already won a lot of people's trust. First of all, I want to emphasize that Wikipedia does not write any article in that anyone can write an article. Wikipedia has basic and essential rules, including the rule that sources must be specified. Therefore, documents that fail to comply with the rules will be deleted. But if you don't follow the rules once or twice, there won't be much disadvantage for you. As you may have noticed here, this site relies heavily on good faith contributions. After all, the question of whether Wikipedia is reliable or not becomes a question of what level of good will humans have. The most direct way to make Wikipedia reliable i...

 Summary) In order to trust information, fact-checking and accuracy must be based. Reliable sources are needed for fact checking and accuracy. In other words, making information reliable is an appropriate source.    Trusted sources can be materials published through a trusted publishing process and authors considered authoritative in relation to the subject matter. Or it could be both.    These qualifications must be demonstrated to others. The personal opinion of the public is unreliable. In general, academic materials such as academic papers and textbooks are the most reliable sources. New/Interesting things I learned) Academic material is generally considered the most reliable source. However, it is impressive that not all academic material is a reliable source. Some academic material that may compete with alternative theories or be controversial in related fields is hardly considered reliable sources. Therefore, I learned that possible academic consensus sho...

 Do you think Wikipedia is reliable? why or why not? Shinhee Kim   I think Wikipedia can be trusted. However, I think it is difficult to use it to prove any fact. Since Wikipedia's materials are gathered by revealing the source, it can be a reference site. However, not all content has been written from reliable sources. So we are often not allowed to bring material from Wikipedia when teaching or writing reports at school.   So, how does Wikipedia go through to become a more reliable site than it is now? One suggestion is to make the review system double. The content written by the first author is written in blue, indicating that the content has not yet been reviewed. And if someone else reviews the content once more through the review system and it turns out that it is the correct content and a reliable source, it is displayed in black. Wouldn't people be more trustworthy if we could distinguish things that we could trust like this? I'm curious about other people's o...

Wikipedia has become the first-ever updated encyclopedia in the world, promoting the collation and sharing of human knowledge and making knowledge free and open. But in Wikipedia, we still find incorrect information. Because the "Wikipedia" entry comes from the folk, anyone can write, although there is a dedicated person to manage the site, as its disclaimer says," Wikipedia does not guarantee the validity of its content ". A lot of people think that Wikipedia's "authority" is not that his content is really authoritative, but because all his content requires second-hand information and requires a referenc e. First-hand information —— is your own experience, for example, you see the sky is blue, you say the sky is blue ；Or you do an experiment, you take out the experimental data is a hand-in-hand information. Second-hand information —— is what you listen to, such as the news you see in the newspaper, the text in the textbook, the articles in the science...

  Summarize Anyway, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, reliability and verifiability are core values. Is Wikipedia is reliable? Sometimes the answer is yes However sometimes the answer is No. Lots of studies gave conformed Wikipedia’s reliability is as great as other encyclopedias. But, vandalism and attack is always exist. Moreover lots of contributors write only what they interested in. Bias or wrong information can exist always. So, this video suggest some ways how to make more reliable Wikipedia. First, please use reliable source. We should have consider four areas to assessing the reliability of the reference: type of the work, creator of the work, publisher of the work. age of the work. Too old work has high possibility of obsolete and Unupdated information. Self-published book has low reliability like personal blog. Second, it is important to distinguish between facts and opinions. This rule can be access to any sources. Even news or academic paper, both opinion an...

 1. Summary Wikipedia articles are mostly reliable. The reason why I answered so vaguely is that some articles contain information that does not have an exact source. If there is no exact source for Wikipedia articles on the topic I want to use as a resource, I will not use it. Conversely, if articles have exact sources such as articles and papers, I would write Wikipedia articles as reliable sources.  2. Interesting point Wikipedia has a function called "featured articles".  The article, labeled as a featured article, is a reliable article through a verification based on a reliable source. These articles are well worth using materials and are very smooth to read. When I need to use Wikipedia's resources, I think I'll make use of this featured articles a lot. 3. Discussion point Is it correct to evaluate the credibility of Wikipedia's article based on the credibility of the cited sources?

 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...

 When do you think we can use wikipedia as a source? In fact, in another course on cultural content, my professor clearly told us that if Wikipedia has reliable source footnotes, then it can be certified as a reliable content support. This point is also my answer to this question. After a few weeks of study, I believe that we have a certain depth of understanding of Wikipedia. It is no longer to edit it at will at the beginning and find relevant ones through Google. To change the information, but to find the actual published content and regular reports to support our content editing. Wikipedia has its own set of criteria for judging whether the source of content is true or not. In my opinion, it is a content judging standard worthy of promotion. At the same time, it can also ensure that the content of Wikipedia is authentic and effective.

  I think Wikipedia is reliable. There are two reasons why I think so. First, the Wikipedia article contains evidence of all claims as a reference. Even a small controversy is attached to a news article to inform that it is not the author's personal opinion. I also attach a lot of references as proof of objective articles when editing Wikipedia. Second, Wikipedia articles can be modified by anyone. Even if someone intentionally wrote the error, any Wikipedia user can delete it all and correct it. Of course, even if you write down the right content, there may be cases where someone corrects the wrong content. But the content will also be corrected by another user.

summary Wikipedia should not be covered. Wikipedia must always be based on reliable data and no documents can be created if the data is unreliable. All documents should be based on neutrality, but some do deal with a non-neutral positive view. This is based on Wikipedia's diversity, and sometimes non-neutral data is inaccurate. People need reliability and the ability to develop reliable data. interesting It was impressive that Wikipedia did not necessarily have accurate and neutral articles. This is at odds with the credibility of the previous chapter. But I think it's good to have more diverse documents. discussion What do you think of various, opinion-based documents, if slightly inaccurate? Is there a need for more documents like this?

summary It deals with Wikipedia's credibility. Since most Wikipedia users are anonymous and can edit freely, Wikipedia's past contents have been one of the main criticisms of Wikipedia's credibility. Therefore, Wikipedia has not been recognized as a useful website by most universities, including Harvard University. Wikipedia has many aspects that are unreliable, but Wikipedia has often been used in legal terms. Controversy over Wikipedia is constantly brewing, but it is clear that Wikipedia is a collective intelligence arena. interesting I've always wondered about Wikipedia's credibility. What's surprising is that many universities in the United States have not rated Wikipedia very positively. There was a story in the last chapter that Wikipedia was created for educational purposes, which is impressive. discussion What do you think about quoting Wikipedia information in writing papers or reports of Korean universities? How does our university regard this?

  1) Summary Wikipedia has many tools for contributors (and a few more for administrators only) to combat vandalism. Supporters of Wikipedia believe that the vast majority of attacks can be detected and corrected in a short period of time. However, this is not inevitable. Destructions such as clearing pages and adding offensive images are easy to correct in a short period of time, but many destructive behaviors can be retained for longer. For example, a user recently added extremely racist content to en:Martin Luther King Day several times, but they were not corrected until almost 4 hours later. In the current version of Wikipedia, there are also several defamatory, unfounded or obviously false claims that have existed for a long time. The Seigenthaler incident is by far the most famous example. 2) The new knowledge  point Supporters of Wikipedia often claim that undetected acts of sabotage are mainly related to low-profile items. Most undetected destructive edits are made by ...

 1) Summary I think the reliability of Wikipedia is gradually increasing. Wikipedia has matured day by day, and the basic facts stated are not wrong, and the basic views described are generally not wrong. Moreover, many entries and articles also provide information sources for people to make further arguments. In other words, as the most basic information material, the accuracy and credibility of Wikipedia is trustworthy. According to an article in Nature in 2005, after comparing Encyclopedia Britannica with Wikipedia, it was found that the accuracy of Encyclopedia Britannica was close to that of Encyclopedia Britannica. 2) Interesting point Today is the age of digitization, networking and information. There are at least two major characteristics of this era. One is the state of information exploding, prompting people to have to use network search engines and other tool-based methods to obtain the information they need. As of today, who can refuse to use Google, Bing, Yahoo to...

  1) Summary The value of information exists because it has a certain degree of reliability. If the information does not have reliability, it will be worthless. We are in the information society, or the information age, and all kinds of information are growing rapidly. Therefore, we should have the ability to identify the reliability of information. So how to identify it? A reliable source of information should be academic publications, periodicals, newspapers, magazines, books, etc. Instead of a random website (such as a social media website) can prove the reliability of the information. 2) Interesting point In reality, a large amount of information cannot be judged whether it is correct, neither can it be judged whether it is correct, nor whether it is incorrect. This kind of non-absolutely reliable information that cannot be judged whether it is correct is widespread, but the reliability of the information is obviously very important. Once the informatio...

Summary This article deals with sources that Wikipedia should and shouldn't cover. Wikipedia should be based on a reliable source, and if the source is unreliable, no articles should be made about it. Whether or not the subject of the article has neutrality, it should be removed if the article about 'people' contains contentious content. However, in the rest of the field, some  articles sometimes deal with a positive view of non-neutral sources. This is because for Wikipedia's diversity, sometimes non-neutral sources can also help to show people a variety of perspectives. In the meantime, 'untrusted' sources are sources that have not been properly fact-checked or edited. Or sponsored sources are often not good sources. People need to develop the ability to make a straight line between reliable and 'untrusted' sources. Interesting As I often used Wikipedia, it was often difficult to distinguish which sources were reliable and which were not useful, but af...

Summary This article deals with the credibility of Wikipedia. Since the majority of Wikipedia users are anonymous and they can edit freely, Wikipedia's content from the past and its reliability have been the subject of criticism and concern. At Harvard University in 2014, several articles on Wikipedia claimed to be highly biased. In addition, the "revenge editing" function has been added, and since then, there have been more cases of weak objectivity or conflicting interests on Wikipedia. Additionally, Wikipedia's value standards have existed in the editing and article generation process, including whether they are reliable and poorly edited. Academics consider Wikipedia an unreliable space and criticize it. Therefore, Wikipedia is not considered a useful website for writing papers in many universities. There are many areas where Wikipedia is considered unreliable, but at the same time, Wikipedia is used in legal lawsuits such as the Federal Court of Appeals. Wikipedi...

  Because every entry of Wikipedia needs to be verified by a reliable source. Coupled with the constant dedication of tens of thousands of powerful volunteers, Wikipedia is the most efficient of all collection and sorting attempts. Not all entries in Wikipedia are highly efficient. Some of the hotspots that have attracted everyone’s attention are prone to produce a lot of feelings, because Wikipedia attaches great importance to the verification of content, any subjective remarks will soon be treated as original research, and high-quality content is in this way. It was born out of babbling and being killed as an original research What is the most important function of Wikipedia for you？

 1. Wikipedia is edited to remain anonymous. Some errors in Wikipedia article has existed. Selection bias in accordance with the characteristics that 1 % to the written most of the article writer chamyeo, sour and bias. Such as racial bias, gender bias problem has occurred. There are many views about the reliability of Wikipedia. The editor has no credentials for his/her editing skills, knowledge of the topic. So Wikipedia is not permitted as a source to writing an official paper. Wikipedia is also uneven reliability and lack inclusiveness by participating of only 1%.  Wikipedia includes pro-American/English bias.  Also, Wikipedia could remain in the false information or inaccurate information for a long time.  There are also vicious acts such as political issues, corporate promotional industries, and editing for financial compensation. Wikipedia articles should be based on trusted and well-known sources. Therefore, what sources are used is a very important issue. Th...

1. Summary Wikipedia can be edited by anyone or anonymously. However, this advantage can be a drawback that threatens reliability of Wikipedia. This is because Wikipedia users may not have the expertise or qualifications for the documents they edit. Experts say Wikipedia is reliable compared to non-professionals, but it is not completely reliable because it contains errors. Political or ideologically biased information can also be used. Therefore, Wikipedia users must annotate reliable sources when contributing to editing. References, citations, and sources are the foundation of Wikipedia. Wikipedia solved the problem of reliability by thoroughly writing sources instead of allowing anonymous editing. 2. Interesting point I felt proud to have my editorial record in history after editing Wikipedia. I didn't know there were people who wanted to contribute anonymously. Discussions among users increase the quality of Wikipedia, which cannot be discussed with anonymous editors. How much ...

 W8.  Why Wikipedia is the most efficient of all attempts to collect and organize?  Why is wikipedia so successful? Shinhee Kim   Keeping information in writing was very important for human development. It was the driving force to move forward without repeating the same mistakes. As more and more such information becomes available, it becomes increasingly important to collect and organize them. Thus, several attempts have been made to collect information. Before the development of the network, various encyclopedias collected various knowledge, and after the development of the network, these attempts were made more actively. However, the site that gathered representative information from around the world became 'Wikipedia'. Why did this result appear?  With the development of the Internet, the amount of information has grown beyond comparison. Such information was absolutely unreasonable for individuals to collect alone. Then, as many people as possible must gath...

What do you find difficult and enjoyable? Reviewing some of our edits Shinhee Kim 1.      What do you find difficult? When I first edited Wikipedia, I had a hard time figuring out what to edit. After making corrections one by one, the most difficult point was to select the subject to be corrected. It was very difficult to find out what content was poorly written in the English and Korean versions. Then, in order to find out what was wrong, I had to read full text of single topic. Also, just because I know it doesn't mean I can change it at will, so it took time to find a reliable source. 2.      What do you find most enjoyable? The modification process was not easy, but as I took time, I felt the best when I thought that what I modified was visible to many people. In particular, I could be proud of myself as a Korean by adding Korean historical events and correcting the wrong contents on the English Wikipedia. I thought it was one of the things that...

 Wikipedia is an encyclopedia in which anyone can participate in editing cultural content. It may not be reliable at this level, because editors do not need to pass relevant qualification exams, and we cannot know whether he is neutral and neutral. Edit these Wikipedia content from an objective standpoint. The reliability evaluation criteria include the need to provide reliable sources in the article, minimize the release of personal opinions, and use these rules to reduce the unreliability of Wikipedia. I think the difference in Wikipedia represents the difference of being educated in the use of culture and technology in modern society. Just like the lack of female-themed content in Wikipedia, part of the reason is that most of the editors are men, and part of the reason is that women's rights were gradually liberated in history. However, ethnography also exists on Wikipedia. In order to maintain a neutral information standpoint, I personally think that in future Wikipedia editing...

  Why Wikipedia is the most efficient of all attempts to collect and organize? I think that Wikipedia comes from coexisting with a large amount of information in the new Internet environment. But processing this information on the same site requires a lot of labor costs. The advantage of Wikipedia allows a large number of users to use it for free, to access articles and academic materials on Wikipedia for free, and to participate in the editing of Wikipedia content as an editor for areas that they are good at. Wikipedia is defined in the words of Jimmy Wales as the sum of human knowledge based on people's desire and pursuit of knowledge. Wikipedia has content in various languages, but the quality of the content in different language versions of the same content is not the same. I think there is room for improvement in maintaining the consistency of content between the various language versions. Do you have any practicable methods for this?

 Summary) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit at any time. This can be unreliable because many editors make it together. That's why efforts are needed to maintain 'reliability' in Wikipedia. Reliability assessment criteria include the accuracy of the information provided in the article. In order to verify accurate information, reliable sources are needed. Doubtful and self-posted sources should be avoided. Academic papers and textbooks are generally the most reliable sources. We should not post our own opinions that read and interpret the material ourselves, but instead post the opinions of trusted authors and protect Wikipedia's 'reliability'. New/Interesting things I learned) Wikipedia's editorial model promotes multiple systematic biases. Wikipedia is mostly written by male editors, resulting in gender bias. There is relatively little electricity for women and the subject of women is less well known. Wikipedia also has a high proportion of w...

  1. Difficult things When editing Wikipedia, I always ask the question: Does my editing contribute to completeness? The question of whether it will help users when adding information seems to be the toughest. It's also difficult when I'm confused about whether my editing is being done the right way. Although other editors or professors can help me in the right direction, it is often difficult for me to judge. 2. Enjoyable things I am happy to help others by filling out information that is not on Wikipedia. Until now, I have lived as an information acceptor, not an information provider. I usually edit about Korea, Environment that I am interested in on Wikipedia. It's to add existing information, but I'm enjoying the generation of information within Wikipedia. 3. Discussion point I feel good when editing information generating on Wikipedia. However, it is also sad when information is edited or modified by others. What about you? What attitude do you take to edit ...

Summary Wikipedia is an open space for anyone to edit freely. Anyone can easily edit anonymously if desired, so the accuracy and reliability of the information may be worrisome, but to prevent this, Wikipedia maintains Wikipedia's reliability with several internal functions. If what the editor posts is not helpful to the article or interferes with the flow, return it to protect the content and thoroughly inspect whether the source is clear and whether it infringes on copyright. Thanks to these checks and rules, Wikipedia is considered a reliable site. Interesting point While editing Wikipedia articles, I felt that reliability was very important. When editing Wikipedia articles or attaching images for assignments, it always says above to make sure they are not copyright infringements, and if they are judged to be a little disruptive to the flow, they are returned and warned really quickly. I was disappointed at first, but I think my credibility has been maintained so far because it ...

  1.      What do you find difficult? There were many difficulties editing Wikipedia. The reason why it was so difficult was that Wikipedia was unfamiliar. Because it has to be translated into English, I paid a lot of attention to whether it was grammatically correct and whether it was the right style for online encyclopedias. In addition, it was difficult to find and attach photos that did not have copyright. It is now adapted to weekly Wikipedia edits. So I'm having fun and editing. 2.      What do you find enjoyable? It's fun to choose a topic of interest and read what's already been edited and find something to add. As I read, I can see things I didn't know, and I feel rewarded to fill in the article so that it can be more complete. Completing one whole piece of writing with others also played a part. 3.      Discussion Do you have any other features that you would like to add to Wikipedia?

Points to discuss The first thing to understand is that Wikipedia has never claimed authority. See what he says：Wikipedia is a multilingual, web-based, free encyclopedia that is based on a model of openly editable content. It is the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet and is named as one of the  most popular websites by Alexa rank. My understanding 1. Focus：reference work . “reference ”   is “ for what it worth ”   2 . What is authority? Is the credibility high or not ? Academic credibility is divided into two aspects, one is the credibility of the author, the other is the credibility of the information carrier. The credibility of the author is to see how high the identity and achievements of the author are. For example, MIT physics professors are more credible than physics undergraduates at Shandong University and undergraduates are better than high school students. And so on.   The credibility of the information carrier is to see whether...

 1.  What do you find difficult? The first person to start Wikipedia is hard to edit. While editing, it is hard to figure out if you are editing in the right way. Also, as I learned in class, I wouldn't even have started without training in editing.  2.  What do you find enjoyable? It is fun to add new information. It's interesting to think that someone will get information from my edits, just as I get it from Wikipedia. I usually like to be helpful to others, and Wikipedia editing also gives me pleasure.

  Why Wikipedia is the most efficient of all attempts to collect and organize? The Nature of Wikipedia and Its Differentiated Strengths  Wikipedia has been reborn as a representative information retrieval site in a new online environment based on information accuracy and reliability. Wikipedia's original goal was to give people a lot of accurate information in various languages. But early on, processing vast amounts of information was bound to run up against the wall of limits. However, Wikipedia's unique strengths have made it available to many people, such as being able to access all articles/academic materials on the site for free and being able to participate directly as an editor.   When asked in an interview if he believed people would voluntarily take the time to collaborate with Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales said he didn't know what to do, but he found faith in people who were happy just by sharing knowledge. Based on his beliefs, it is no exaggeration to say that W...

 1. Summary Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. It is also possible to edit anonymously. An anonymous editor is an important component of Wikipedia. But this could lead to criticism of Wikipedia's Reliability. Wikipedia editors may not have expertise, competence or credentials on the topics they contribute to. Experts say Wikipedia articles are more reliable than non-experts. Wikipedia is said to have high accuracy. However, experts say Wikipedia should not be considered completely reliable because it contains about 13 percent of errors. Also, Wikipedia can deliver politically biased information. In fact, editing Wikipedia based on political understanding was controversial. Wikipedia's credibility is being questioned due to these various issues. One of the ways to dispel this suspicion is from reliable sources. Based on reliable and independent sources known for their fact-checking and accuracy. It also posts only comments from trust...

Q1. What do you find difficult? The hardest thing about editing Wikipedia was that I wasn't used to it. While taking this class, I edited Wikipedia for the first time, but I didn't know how to do it or what I shouldn't edit, so it took time to adjust at first. Among them, I especially hated it when the edited content was returned. Most of the time, they didn't tell me why, but it was harder because they didn't know what they did wrong. This part was the hardest part.   Q2. What do you find enjoyable? The thing I enjoyed the most about editing Wikipedia was that my edits to the article remained intact. I felt proud in that I could get this information from others by sharing what I knew and correcting the mistakes. I enjoyed this part the most.

Summary Improved communication could be media. Improved communication is television, radio, Internet, social media and so on. In the past, communication was limited because there were not suitable methods to communicate with each other. Therefore, people developed some communication methods, which means improved communication such as alphabet, pictogram, Internet and so on. Now, I would like to talk about how important improved communication is for our lives. Discussion First, I would like to say improved communication is so important for our lives. Communication is a process of sharing one’s opinions and feelings. When people communicate with each other, they get to know other’s opinions and their thoughts become widened and improved. However as I said, in the past, communication was limited because there were not suitable methods to communicate with each other. In this situation, improved communication works. Through improved communication, people can communicate with each other so e...

1. What do you find difficult? What I find difficult is what Wikipedia’s editing methods are. I mean in my opinion, there are some usual ways of editing Wikipedia. I had an experience about realizing Wikipedia’s own ways. I have edited an article about one of K-pop idols, ITZY and I thought it was okay to write their birthdays under the names of its members. However, someone deleted my edits about the birthdays so I was wondering why she or he deleted my edits. Turns out, on the list of member’s names, we normally have to write only their names, not other information. Then I realized why my edits were deleted. At first, I did not know the usual ways of editing but as I am used to editing Wikipedia, I realized them. 2. What do you find most enjoyable? What I find most enjoyable is to feel proud of my edits and myself. Whenever I edit some articles and see my list of contributions to Wikipedia, I feel so proud of them. Moreover, I feel a sense of being professional about the subject whic...

Summary ‘ Wikipedia:Reliable sources ’ describes what reliable sources can be used in Wikipedia articles. How to use these reliable sources correctly. Or which articles are unreliable and cannot be used. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered. Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.  Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.  Interesting Breaking news point: It is better to wait a...

 1. Summary Wikipedia's articles are easy to change as many people edit. Accordingly, the credibility of an article is likely to change. Wikipedia created several features to keep it from losing credibility. Typically, editors use the citation and external link introduction function to write reliable information, and examine whether the original source of these materials is reliable as well. Thanks to these efforts, it seems to Wikipedia is becoming increasingly accepted in science where objectivity and reliability are important. related paper 2. Interesting point I edited an article about VIPS last time, and I found all of my edits disappeared because it's too commercial. Actually, I didn't think what I was writing was promoting VIPS. I think this strict part of Wikipedia is another point that enhances credibility. 3. Discussion point Is Wikipedia professional? Why have more and more scientists come to cite Wikipedia? 

 1. difficult things I edited several articles on Wikipedia for eight weeks. Editing Wikipedia articles has been giving me a hard time every week. Among that, the hardest thing for me was whether people could easily understand what I wrote. For example, I was editing an English version of Wikipedia about Korean traditional food last week. Writing down the recipe for traditional food in English, I found it is very difficult to distinguish whether this word or expression was right or not. Another difficulty is making tables! Wikipedia must use its own templates to create tables and cannot change color, size, and text alignment at will. When I made a few tables on Wikipedia, they looked terrible that I eventually gave up making them. 2. enjoyable things It is most enjoyable for me to edit an article that I'm interested in. The Korean traditional food mentioned above was a topic that I was interested in, so even though editing was difficult, it was really fun when I chose words and exp...

1) Various efforts to gather people's knowledge into one place For a very long time, like the Gutenberg Project, an attempt to archive all books, human knowledge, in one place, continued. Even the above project is in progress. It is very valuable to bring together the things that are scattered here and there in print. However, despite these attempts, technical problems and differences in values ​​of each person did not result in a successful completion. However, the launch of Wikipedia was successful because it was accompanied by the advent of the Internet, that is, technology and, according to some, "free time".   2) Why Wikipedia is the most efficient means Wikipedia wasn't the first attempt to unite people's knowledge. There have been so many attempts, but among them, Wikipedia is the most successful in "technology". In the past, there was a lack of technology to actually implement these attempts, and there was a limit to actually creating ideal...

1 A reliable source is a reliable or authoritative publication related to the subject. The assessment of reliability depends on the credibility of the authors and publications with consideration of its content. The document must rely on published evidence from a third party that is reliable, reputable for fact-checking and accuracy. This article also specifically describes aspects of reliability. -The independent study is not a reliable source. -Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. -Sponsored content is generally unacceptable as a source, because it is paid for by advertisers and bypasses the publication's editorial process. -Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an ex...

1. Summary   Wikipedia also allows editing of living people. As a result, biographies of people, biased writings about life, and defamation writings appear. On subjects that are not answered correctly, such as social science and culture, incorrect information is sometimes written or biased. As a result, Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable reference. In particular, researchers, teachers, and journalists also avoid using Wikipedia. Therefore, the references, citations and sources under Wikipedia are a valuable beginning for Wikipedia. This may be because Wikipedia allows anonymous editing and does not require an author's identity or email address. 2. Interesting Point It is interesting that anyone can write down his information about a living person, but on the other hand, there are scary parts. This is because you can gather information that exists in the world about someone and even parts that you don't want to disclose on your own can be published on Wikipedia. I thi...