W9. Do you think Wikipedia is reliable? why or why not? / Jung Jisoo

 1. Summary

Whenever I edit Wikipedia, take a class, or read Wikipedia-related resources in Syllabus, I often think about whether Wikipedia is reliable. First of all, my thoughts seem to be different depending on what kind of article it is. The reason is the reliability of the cited data. If the cited material is reliable, I think the Wikipedia material is reliable. However, I think it is difficult to trust if the source is unclear or if it is biased to one side. So, if the source is clear, I can trust it and use it as a reference for my assignments.

And I think an article like 'Wikipedia: List of hoaxes on Wikipedia' will help to improve the credibility of Wikipedia. This is because I think that more hoaxes data can be found by organizing hoaxes and analyzing their characteristics.


2. Interesting point & Question _Wikipedia: List of hoaxes on Wikipedia

I read the 'Wikipedia: List of hoaxes on Wikipedia' in the attached material. This list was written to document the hoaxes on Wikipedia. This article also says one thing about how to identify hoaxes. It examines the structure and content of the article, mentions in other articles on Wikipedia, and the characteristics of the editor who created the page. In addition to this, I am curious about how to find hoaxes with accuracy. What is another way? Also, the article said that the system is better than human beings investigated. the accuracy of the system was higher and I think this is great. Finally, this list does not contain all the hoaxes, and many have not yet been discovered. It's not revealed, but how many hoaxes exist? 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

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