W9: Do you think Wikipedia is reliable? why or why not?/ MINJI JEONG


-Do you think Wikipedia is reliable?


I think Wikipedia is reliable. This is because large amounts of information are accumulated due to many users, and the information posted by individuals is reviewed and modified by other users. It is also verified through numerous references (papers, news, books, etc.). Therefore, I think Wikipedia's information is reliable.


Of course, it is difficult to fully trust all the information. This is because one cannot rule out the possibility that someone has posted unverified individual's subjective thoughts like objective information. It should be noted that the risk of disinformation or forgery is inherent. Therefore, users think it is good to avoid unconditional trust and trust.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

W2 : Why Wikipedia? / Wikipedia and alienation

● Why Wikipedia? ●  Problems : Wikipedia and alienation   1) Why Wikipedia has become more acceptable Through this week's lecture, I learned why Wikipedia has become acceptable and why I should get used to it. One of  Wikipedia's characteristics is that it does not guarantee any financial benefits. Many people are participating in these tasks simply for fun or just volunteering. Wikipedia suggests a new anthropological perspective in that it is an encyclopedia that participates not for financial gain but for pride. Secondly,  Wikipedia is a platform with excellent participation effectiveness. It is very attractive that participation in the work is immediately seen by many people. Also, it is more tempting that the process is not difficult. Personally, I think this is similar to today's social network, such as Instagram or Facebook. And I think that's one of the reasons why Wikipedia is becoming more popular nowadays. Finally,  Wikipedia is becomin...
Read more

W8.2 Wikipedia: Reliable sources / Kim Yoon(김윤)

Summary This article deals with sources that Wikipedia should and shouldn't cover. Wikipedia should be based on a reliable source, and if the source is unreliable, no articles should be made about it. Whether or not the subject of the article has neutrality, it should be removed if the article about 'people' contains contentious content. However, in the rest of the field, some  articles sometimes deal with a positive view of non-neutral sources. This is because for Wikipedia's diversity, sometimes non-neutral sources can also help to show people a variety of perspectives. In the meantime, 'untrusted' sources are sources that have not been properly fact-checked or edited. Or sponsored sources are often not good sources. People need to develop the ability to make a straight line between reliable and 'untrusted' sources. Interesting As I often used Wikipedia, it was often difficult to distinguish which sources were reliable and which were not useful, but af...
Read more