W9: When do you think we can use Wikipedia as a source?

 

∎ When do you think we can use Wikipedia as a source?


1.

Wikipedia can be used as a source when there is solid evidence that Wikipedia is reliable. It has been reviewed by many people, and it should be an article of credible sources. I think Wikipedia is reliable. However, not all Wikipedia articles have credibility. Some sources are not registered, and some sources themselves are unreliable.


2.

Personally, I think it will be difficult to use as a source for public writings such as articles and papers. I think we can use it as a source when we do school assignments. Because the reader should think Wikipedia's source is reliable, but Wikipedia credibility is still low in Korea.


3.

Then what does it take to increase the credibility of Wikipedia in our country? What should I do?

I think the first thing to do is to encourage many people to use Wikipedia. I also came to understand Wikipedia's system by using Wikipedia. I think understanding the system will increase the credibility of Wikipedia. Then we can use Wikipedia information as a source.



Comments

  1. 박채정 Park ChaeJeongMay 1, 2021 at 6:28 AM

    Hi, 영실.
    When I agonized over this topic, I thought trust in Wikipedia information was a priority. However, if you want to increase the credibility of the website itself, not the information provided by Wikipedia, you should encourage the use of Wikipedia as you say. How do we get to use Wikipedia? It's a one-dimensional idea, but I think it's a priority to provide more accurate information than other sites. This is because it can flow naturally into Wikipedia.

    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