W9 : Do you think wikipedia is reliable? Why or why not?

 

∎ Do you think wikipedia is reliable? Why or why not?


1.

To determine whether Wikipedia is reliable, you need to understand Wikipedia's system. Wikipedia encourages people to reveal their sources. If you don't reveal the source, a notification appears at the top of the article. Also, Wikipedia users can review each other. If it's not the right information, you can talk to the other person and correct the information. In the past, when I heard that Wikipedia was an encyclopedia made by users, not experts, I thought Wikipedia would not have reliable information. However, during the course, I understood Wikipedia and now I think Wikipedia is reliable.


2.

Sometimes knowledge of collective intelligence is better than knowledge of experts. Also, there is no 100% chance of what humans do. There are bound to be mistakes made by humans, and not only Wikipedia but also experts. I can't say Wikipedia is more reliable than a professional. However, Wikipedia cannot be said to be unreliable.


3.

What is the first factor we consider to determine whether it is credible? Source or jargon? Date the information was registered?



Comments

  1. 이현영 Hyeonyoung LeeMay 1, 2021 at 6:54 PM

    Youngsil, I read your writing well. I agree that many people can work together to create articles as much as or more than professionals. I think the source is the first factor to consider Wikipedia's credibility. It's a way to justify editing, even though some people put sources in the wrong way. Emphasizing the source cannot be overstated!

    ReplyDelete

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