Reading 7-CAI XIAOHUA

  (1) Summary

Since its inception, Wikipedia has been shunned almost unanimously by academia, almost unanimously, that is, not to be used in academic research or writing.

First, the accuracy is poor.The accuracy of such information cannot be guaranteed, given that it can be written and edited by everyone and that such acts can take place anytime, anywhere.While everyone can write, edit, and make sure to change mistakes at any time, some of them have been there for a long time, not just months or even years.For more abstract topics, fewer people read and fewer articles edited, the probability of this error is higher.Second, its credibility is low.According to a 2009 survey, more than 87% of Wikipedia's editors are male and under the age of 27, with the majority coming from Europe and North America.Because of the lack of diversity, the content not only does not fully reflect the diversity of human knowledge, but also correspondingly lacks a diversity of views, even with different racial, cultural and gender prejudices.Some people log in to delete other people's articles in order to promote their own views, and then rewrite or force their own articles.In addition, there are people who deliberately write false information, fabricate and falsify facts, which can cause false information to appear on Wikipedia and spread online.Thirdly, there is not enough authority.Few people on Wikipedia use their real names and provide little or no information of their own.And we know that the authority of most encyclopedias is based on the author being a well-known scholar in the relevant field.In addition, both the author and the purpose of writing are important academic information for academic research and academic treatises.Ignorance of informants undermines trust in Wikipedia, and its authority cannot be guaranteed.


（2）Interesting point 

In December 2017, the US Educational Technology published an article on "Wikipedia as a trusted academic resource.The question was asked of scientists at universities such as MIT and the University of Pittsburgh.Their answer is: Scientists think they can be trusted.I think this affirmative represents a shift in understanding of Wikipedia in universities like MIT.The study found that open resources could be used for academic purposes, with only a few digitized standards and corresponding requirements for students, the article said.Thompson, an assistant professor at the MIT School of Management, says their survey shows that scientists are using Wikipedia, which has implications for their ongoing scientific research.On the student side, the study noted that students were more likely to look for research material on the Internet, with Wikipedia and the millions of articles it carried as their preferred references.But that's why Wikipedia used to be stigmatized.In the view of the study, Wikipedia could well be considered a legitimate academic resource if used appropriately. So Wikipedia is one of the sources and tools of most literal information; again, like today's rich web resources, you have to learn to distinguish between false and biased parts of Wikipedia.University of North Texas lecturer Pasquini says that wherever she teaches students online, she always teaches them critical thinking and academic research always involves information analysis.Only then can students use Wikipedia as accurately as scientists do.


 (3)Discussion

Do you think Wikipedia is doing more harm than good?  Would you consider it a reliable engine site?

Comments

  1. caiyayuApril 20, 2023 at 7:57 PM

    I believe that Wikipedia can be used as a reference, but not as an authoritative source, especially in academic research or other situations where a high degree of accuracy and reliability is required. It is always recommended that information from multiple reliable sources be verified before it is deemed accurate and reliable.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reading 3——CHENXINLEI

  1）  Summary   This article discusses the advantages and disadvantages of Wikipedia's "openness" features. The author gives a detailed description of these five open characteristics.( Open content 、 Transparency 、 Integrity 、 Nondiscrimination 、 Noninterference) “ A central aspiration in the pursuit of a universal encyclopedia is increased access to information: an opening of opportunity and capability to anyone with a desire to learn. ” Open communities allow everyone to learn or express their thoughts on Wikipedia.Open knowledge community is not only an important gathering place for knowledge innovation and sharing, but also a source of wisdom.In such an environment, users are content sharers, creators, and providers of wisdom. “ people don’t even agree about which is which. ”   However, the malicious controversy brought about by such an environment cannot ignore a problem. Everyone's ideas are different, and it is because of the open environment that it is easier...
Read more

Reading 4

 1. Summary The article argues that understanding Wikipedia requires appreciating its community and collaborative culture, but also recognizing the challenges it faces from personal differences and external threats. Despite its collaborative nature, Wikipedia has been shaped by authorial leadership, with an informal benevolent dictator guiding the community and mediating disputes. However, this leadership role can be challenging to balance, as new responsibilities and authority may arise. The article uses examples, such as Sanger's reflections on his departure from the community and discussions about Wales's role, to illustrate the delicate balance of leadership in the Wikipedia community. 2. Interesting As an AI language model, I do not have personal opinions, but I can identify some points that may be interesting to readers. One interesting point is how the author describes the culture and community of Wikipedia and how it has been shaped by authorial leadership. The idea of ...
Read more

Reading7——HE YUNONG

  1. Summary After reading this article, I understand that Wikipedia articles must have reliable sources, and the opinions in the sources should be neutral. Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. 2. Interesting points News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source.  I think this is important because some news headlines are written to grab the reader's attention quickly and briefly; their news content may be exaggerated or lack context, and even sometimes contain sensational claims. 3. Discussion points Do you know how to test reliable sources?
Read more