W8: Reliability of Wikipedia /허소희(Heo Sohee)

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 think the right not to reveal and not to publicize should be given the same standard to celebrities.


3. Discussion Point

As I wrote on an interesting point, I think there should be a clear provision for writing information about a particular person. I think people should think from a different perspective about parts that can be interpreted in various ways such as situations, phenomena, and cultures. Isn't the right not to let anyone know a right?

Comments

  1. SOMIN PARK (박소민)April 23, 2021 at 10:29 PM

    about 3)
    I agree with you to some extent! I hope there are clear rules when writing about celebrities or historical figures that can be interpreted in various ways. Also, the right not to be informed seems a little vague. In the case of sensitive cases or scandals, most of them are not known because they are intended to be known, but because they are inevitably known by others.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lee ye han (이예한)April 24, 2021 at 7:56 AM

    It was interesting because it seemed to be a new perspective.
    I also think there should be clear regulations on writing information about a particular person. I think we should think about whether what others wrote about a person may not be true, and even if it is true, we have the right to disclose it.

    ReplyDelete

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