W8 : Reliability of Wikipedia / Park Chan Young (박찬영)

 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 trusted authors, and does not self-publish comments by reading and interpreting key source materials.

2. Interesting point

The anonymous editor is the key to Wikipedia's success and the subject of criticism. This ambivalence and irony make studying Wikipedia interesting. 


3. Discussion

What do you think about using Wikipedia as a resource in the field of education? The article said it could be used in a critical way. To what extent do you think it's okay to use Wikipedia's information?

Comments

  1. Yang Ruixin 양서영April 24, 2021 at 7:27 AM

    I THINK WIKI handed over the judgement of authority to the reader himself.The user can use his own brain to judge,
    WIKI is transparent and open.What he wants is not to ensure that every entry is right, not to make himself an authority, not to teach you what truth is; but to ensure that everyone has the right to use his own brain, to distinguish between right and wrong, and to distinguish between credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  2. HARI KIM 김하리April 25, 2021 at 8:07 PM

    I think we can use it to show various perspectives. But I don't think we can prove any proposition based on Wikipedia. Wiki can have errors because it is made by millions of people together. Therefore, using wiki itself as a resource for education is at risk of error. Let's just use it to show different perspectives.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

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