W8/Reliability of Wikipedia, Reliable_sources/HARI KIM

 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 white contributors, resulting in racial bias. Lack of information about black people makes them seem unimportant, and the sources of the article mainly cite white people favorably. I realized that there were concerns about racial bias, corporate bias, and national bias depending on the composition of the community. Interestingly, Wikipedia requires articles to be written from a neutral perspective, but reliable sources need not be neutral or objective. This is because non-neutral sources are the best sources to show information about various perspectives. In order to write an article from a neutral perspective, we could learn that it is positive to find out information about various perspectives, including biased perspectives.


Discussion Point)

Few academic studies have focused on racial prejudice in Wikipedia. What an editor needs to add a black history article is that it needs to be "noteworthy" met. However, it is difficult for minorities to meet the requirements. What do you think of this issue of Wikipedia bias? How should we balance information on Wikipedia? I want to know your opinion.



Comments

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