W9 : After reading following materials

      First of all, according to the reading material describing Wikipedia fraud, we find that automated classification systems are better at identifying fraud in Wikipedia than humans, with an accuracy of 86% versus 63%. One way to identify fake articles is to investigate the structure and content of the article, the content mentioned in other articles on Wikipedia, and the function of the editor who created the page. Reading material containing Wikipedia hoaxes shows events so far neatly organized by year.

     Another reading explains Wikipedia in popular culture. The details detail the cases in which Wikipedia was mentioned or used in broadcasting stations, entertainment, and art. It also explains Wikipedia's inaccuracies as cited.
     
Two reading materials are likely to claim similar information. The first states that there were a lot of Wikipedia hoaxes here, but finally shows that they were modified in the end. The second reading shows that citations are multifaceted.

     The idea from the first reading material is that wiki editing related to historical objects, events, etc. is likely to be misunderstood as true. It seems that people tend to believe things that are very old because they do not know exactly about artificial intelligence. After reading the second reading material, I saw a lot of Wikipedia quotes from the broadcasting station and thought it was similar to Namu Wiki in Korea. It's hard to investigate the lifetime of the cast, so viewers can see the survey based on the wooden wiki. Updating information about favorite celebrities seems to stand out to fans the most, too. Was there anything particularly interesting or impressive about Wikipedia hoaxes?

Comments

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