W9) When do you think we can use wiki as a source? /박채정, PARK CHAEJEONG


When do you think we can use wiki as a source?


 1. Summary

 Articles we usually write on Wikipedia are based on academic material such as formal news articles and papers. And it's verified and verified by a lot of people. How about answering the question of when Wikipedia itself can be used as a source like this? Wikipedia has enough information that we can trust for the same reason as previously stated. Therefore, it is possible to use Wikipedia as a source at any time. Then you may have one question. Is all the information on Wikipedia reliable? As with other Internet sites other than Wikipedia, all information is not always accurate. We have to filter out the unnecessary information directly from the vast amount of information, and discern the false news. So is Wikipedia. Some of the sources of the article may not be registered, and may not be official. You'll have to be careful about this.


2. Interesting point

 In fact, when I look at blogs written by others, I think again from a very different perspective from my opinion, although in a similar context. And I think I'm learning this process to make better use of the site Wikipedia. 


3. Discussion point

 What are some ways to tell if this information is reliable or not when using Wikipedia? What efforts should we make to use Wikipedia's information as a source?



Comments

  1. MINKYO JEONG, 정민교May 1, 2021 at 6:52 AM

    Chaejeong, I read your post well. Your blog posts are always well written, and your thoughts are well organized.

    First of all, my opinion is very similar to what you described. I agree that not all of Wikipedia's content is reliable and we need to determine if it is fake news or not.
    When determining this, I think we can filter its credibility through citations embedded in the article.

    Ultimately, we eventually need to focus on figuring out the credibility of a source. This is because if it is possible, it can be said to we have the ability to accept certain information intelligently.

    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