W12: quality and peer review

 Summary

The video “Understanding Wikipedia: Advanced editing or how to write high quality content” and The Article “development page” explain article's grade and how to develop article. Good article's criteria is like that: Well written, verifiable with no original research, Broad in its coverage, Neutral, Stable, Illustrated(if possible, by image). There are sub-criteria for this. For example, to meet 'Well-written', you have to complies with the style guideline for layout, words and etc.

Featured article is the high-quality article in Wikipedia. It joins an exclusive group of featured content which is showed across various pages. Wikipedia aims for a perfect article, but there are not perfect. Perfection is always goal. It gives some tips for selecting article, finding relevant article, researching and other procedure for writing articles. Following this article, we can find free online resource on Google Scholar and CORE, BASE.

Moreover, we can contribute by assessment a article. Peer review is Wikipedia’s an important resource. It might cannot visible to average reader. However, assessment can be a great help to upgrade the quality of the article.

 

Interesting Point

The emphasis on peer reviews was impressive. Both video and article emphasize importance of peer review. The video explain the Wikipedia can be improved through assessment. And the last paragraph of the article is peer review. It says networking with like-minded Wikipedian is the most important and enjoyable aspect of the Wikipedia project. Giving advice and feedback is a key factor of the Wikipedia working.

In these descriptions, I could feel good faith’s power once again. Because of this interaction, Wikipedia is not only encyclopedia but also a community. As a result, Wikipedia receives a lot of attention and can be called a screenshot of the community.

 

Discussion Point

As professor mentioned in the video "Advanced editing or..." quality is social value. A decade later since Wikipedia was created, numerous articles have been created. And the quality of articles has diversified. Some old articles has a lot of content and high quality. In this situation, Is it right to keep the classification intact? Would it be better to further refine the ratings? If further refine the ratings, newcomers can easily reach the next level and existing users may be motivated. But rather, it may reduce inflows because of complication and receive complaints from existing users. How do you think? What would be a more positive measure? I want to hear your opinion about this topic.

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