W8. Wikipedia:Reliable sources / Jung jisoo

1. Summary 

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it has to deal with reliable articles. That's why the source is essential. If the source is unknown or the source is insufficient, it should be deleted. Types of sources include scholarship, news sources, vendor and e-commerce sources and based or opinionated sources. These sources should be as up-to-date as possible, should be treated neutrally, and should be presented fairly with a few perspectives. Sources cited on individual web pages are less reliable, so it would be good to use reliable sources to improve the quality of information while determining which materials can improve the quality of Wikipedia articles.


2. What I learned
While working on the main project, I was worried about what to do to maintain neutrality. Since the subject of the article to be edited is a historical event, the way of viewing it was different depending on the political inclination. So, I was worried about whether I should refer to all the documents dealing with different perspectives. However, I think that some of my concerns have been resolved by referring to this material. With this material, I should work hard to create a more neutral and reliable article. 


3. Question

Wikipedia has guidelines that reliable sources should be used for quality articles. It explains the types of reliable sources on Wikipedia, and I think it is trying to create high-quality data such as the accuracy of the sources. What do you think about the credibility of Wikipedia articles? What kind of management is needed to make it a higher quality article?

Comments

  1. Sohee HeoApril 23, 2021 at 12:22 AM

    As noted above, Wikipedia has set out various regulations to provide quality information. If you think about another question, you'll also wonder where to add more credibility to traditional mass media and social media.

    ReplyDelete
  2. MINKYO JEONG, 정민교April 23, 2021 at 9:44 PM

    Jisoo, your question seems to be an indispensable point for the development of Wikipedia.

    I think the Wikipedia article right now is somewhat reliable. That criterion is because it can be confirmed by collating certain information with the data cited in it. So, it can be said that reliability is guaranteed to some extent.

    In order to develop further in the future, it would be good to have a way to self-check, that is, filter, whether the cited data are neutral and fact-based, as you mentioned.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

W7: Review of Good Faith Collaboration / Suyoung Han

  Review of Good Faith Collaboration 1) Summary – Wikipedia from an ethnographic perspective: focusing on collaboration within the community Wikipedia, which is called the world's largest encyclopedia, is an open community and is becoming more and more solid with the participation of various people, conflict, and resolution. In this respect, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. attempted to explain the culture that takes place within Wikipedia. The book describes how Wikipedia was created and what it values. In particular, he described Wikipedia in a book from an ethnographic point of view, and focused on cooperation within the community. 2) Interesting Point – Wikipedia is simple, but not I realized that Wikipedia is not just a site made up of community activities, but rather a collaborative activity that is carried out concretely for the goal. Before I read the book, Wikipedia was an encyclopedia site that only gave me information (even I didn't trust the information), and I thought ...
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