W9: Understanding Wikipedia: Reliability and verifiability

1) The importance of citations in Wikipedia

Citation is very important for Wikipedia's credibility and verifiability. Citations can be referenced from trusted sites, academic materials, news, and books. It is very important to find these “reliable” references well, as how reliable they are will determine the credibility of articles on the wiki. In fact, it can be said that citations are pretty much everything on Wikipedia.

It is recommended that Wikipedia articles be quoted in every sentence. In addition, all these sentences should be described in an encyclopedic speaking manner that describes facts, not any opinions.

In this way, it can be said that reliable reference materials are properly cited in every sentence as a high-quality and reliable article.

 

2) verifiability

In this lecture, the explanation of 'verifiability' was impressive. This verifiability is described as being different from 'neutral', or 'unbiased', or 'objective'. So, "to be realistic" and "verifiability" mean different things. There are different opinions in the world, but there is no absolute truth.

Anyway, I thought verifiability and fact meant the same thing, but it's memorable that they point to different points.

 

3) Discussing point

There are many different viewpoints in this world, but is there not a completely neutral one? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so is it correct to give a biased description as long as it can be proved through a reliable source?

Comments

  1. 김윤(KIM YOON)May 1, 2021 at 9:47 AM

    Unless we are solving math problems, I don't think there is a neutral and objective "correct answer," especially in areas such as society, economy, and culture.
    The modern society has been established because there have been various ideas of various people, and society continues to change at this moment. Therefore, even on Wikipedia, where knowledge from all fields of society is gathered, we cannot and should not find the "correct answer." There are various perspectives, sometimes somewhat biased, on Wikipedia, which is why people's thinking is improving. It is important for them to share and discuss their ideas here and move in the direction of one or several pieces of unified knowledge, and respect each other's different ideas in the process.

    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