Reading 7. Woohyuck CHO

1. SUMMARY

 Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where editing and publishing is open to everyone. Therefore, the reliability of the article depends on the author's expertise. However, most articles are not easy to trust because they are posted anonymously by authors and edited by anonymous authors. So Wikipedia is using a number of tools to ensure its credibility. Use only reliable sources to secure the credibility of the article. But I can't guarantee that this works that well. In the case of "South America Coati," a 17-year-old student jokingly wrote down the nickname he had come up with on Wikipedia, which remained on Wikipedia for six years and spread to a number of websites and newspapers. Some books were even published directly by the university. The fact that anyone can edit and post can create good synergy through collective intelligence, but there is also a possibility that it will have an unreliable adverse effect.


2. INTERESTING/USEFUL POINT

 As mentioned above, Wikipedia can be edited and posted by anyone, resulting in a lot of collective intelligence. As stated in the article, authoritative groups such as academics do not officially recognize Wikipedia, and even Wikipedia itself does not consider it a reliable source. I don't think Wikipedia is a completely unreliable source. Enough experts will leave articles on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is also making great efforts to secure trust. We also thought that we needed a critical attitude when accepting information.


3. DISCUSSION

 How about making Wikipedia harder to qualify for editing to be more reliable?

Comments

  1. AnonymousApril 22, 2023 at 3:51 AM

    The inclusivity of allowing anyone to participate in editing is the cornerstone of Wikipedia's identity and one of its greatest strengths. change the direction, to ensure the trustworthiness of its articles, considering other alternatives might be a good idea.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Geonwoo Lee(이건우)April 22, 2023 at 7:58 AM

    I think that if editing qualifications become difficult, the characteristics of Wikipedia itself, which allows anyone to post their opinions freely, will disappear.

    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