W9. Do you think wikipedia is reliable? why or why not?

 Do you think Wikipedia is reliable? why or why not?

Shinhee Kim

  I think Wikipedia can be trusted. However, I think it is difficult to use it to prove any fact. Since Wikipedia's materials are gathered by revealing the source, it can be a reference site. However, not all content has been written from reliable sources. So we are often not allowed to bring material from Wikipedia when teaching or writing reports at school.

  So, how does Wikipedia go through to become a more reliable site than it is now? One suggestion is to make the review system double. The content written by the first author is written in blue, indicating that the content has not yet been reviewed. And if someone else reviews the content once more through the review system and it turns out that it is the correct content and a reliable source, it is displayed in black. Wouldn't people be more trustworthy if we could distinguish things that we could trust like this? I'm curious about other people's opinions.


Comments

  1. 이영실May 1, 2021 at 3:36 AM

    Oh! I heard your opinion. I focused on Wikipedia's external factors to use Wikipedia as a source, and you focused on Wikipedia's internal factors. It was interesting because it was something I didn't think of. As you said, if the review system is implemented, I think there will be more confidence in the information. I personally thought that in order for us to use Wikipedia as a source in Korea, many people need to use Wikipedia to build trust in the Wikipedia system. It seems that Korea is still negative that ordinary people, not experts, accumulate information directly, and the low use of Wikipedia seems to be a reason why Wikipedia is difficult to use as a source.

    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