W8: Reliable of Wekipedia /Lee ye han

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 is so tricky.

 

Discussion point

When did you feel most reliable using Wikipedia?

I wonder where you feel trust.

Comments

  1. 박채정 Park ChaeJeongApril 25, 2021 at 6:20 AM

    Hello. 예한.

    I thought about your last question. I've felt trustworthy at times like this while using Wikipedia. As I use Wikipedia as editor, it's time for many people to ask for or modify the evidence for the information I add. I felt that this was an act based on credibility. So I also try to be more careful and accurate when writing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 박채정 Park ChaeJeongApril 25, 2021 at 6:20 AM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    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