W8: Review of Wikipedia:Reliable sources / Suyoung Han

 Review of Wikipedia: Reliable sources


1) Summary – Reliable source on Wikipedia

 When Wikipedia edits an article, it is required to cite the source, and it is important to know whether the source is reliable. First of all, three factors are important for a source: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. All three can affect stability and must be materials that have been proven by others.

 Many sources of Wikipedia rely on academic data (articles, etc.), but some academic data can be controversial, so you need to know the exact thesis of the source when using it. And, some sources are unreliable under normal contexts but are acceptable under specific contexts (biography of a living person, secondary sources, quotes, etc.).

2) Interesting Point – Reliability under special contexts

 Sources that can be trusted in special contexts are interesting. In particular, it was newly discovered from this source that the words and actions of a person, such as a biography of a living person, or temporary news such as breaking news can be used as a source. With this as an opportunity, I would like to check the cautions of a reliable source page and write an edit related to breaking news in the next Wikipedia activity.

3) Discussion point – Standard of Reliability

 What is the criterion for judging reliability when you are doing assignments or making references? And based on those criteria, which kind of source do you consider to be the most reliable?

- For me, the criterion for judging the credibility of a source is 'the number of citations'. I think many people can be trusted as much as they have citations. So, I think academic papers are the most reliable.


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