W8: Reliability of Wikipedia / Sangmin Choe

 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. The elements of reliability are related to the work itself(quality), the creator of the work, and the source, such as the publisher. Since the reliability of a source depends on context, it must be carefully examined to determine whether it is an appropriate source. Types of sources include academia, news, and trade sources. Sponsor content or self-produced content is considered a suspicious source. Biographies, quotations, and academic agreements are also considered reliable sources depending on the circumstances.



2.

The article I wrote was deleted because the source was inaccurate. I was embarrassed at the time, but now that I know the characteristics of Wikipedia, I understand. Wikipedia intended to ensure credibility by clarifying the source material because of the nature that anonymity can undermine the credibility of the material. The past situation came to mind, and the contents of the class were interesting.



3.

What are some ways to secure reliability on Wikipedia, other than from a source?

Comments

  1. 김윤(KIM YOON)April 25, 2021 at 7:55 AM

    I don't think it's bad to have an appropriate level of autonomous surveillance among users. Since it is a society where freedom of expression is mostly guaranteed and anyone can participate in Wikipedia, biased, discriminatory, and subjective content can be included in the article as much as possible. This undermines the quality of the space called Wikipedia. Therefore, I think that if there is a voluntary and positive monitoring system among users, it will work well with the rules within Wikipedia.

    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