Reading7 - 진심이 CHEN XINYI

 

1. Summary 

The reliability and provenance of Wikipedia have been widely discussed. As an open collaboration platform, Wikipedia allows anyone to edit and contribute articles, which raises some concerns about the quality and reliability of its information. There are a few key points to consider when evaluating the reliability of Wikipedia:

1.Community Review: Wikipedia has a wide community of contributors who review and monitor edits. During the editing process, other contributors review, correct, and add to the content. This collective moderation and collaboration mechanism can help improve the accuracy and reliability of the content.

2.Citing Sources: Wikipedia encourages the use of reliable, verified sources to support article content. Contributors were asked to cite information from reliable sources and to provide corresponding citation links. This allows the reader to trace back to the source of the information and assess its credibility.

3.Edit history and discussion page: Each Wikipedia article has an edit history and discussion page. These pages document the revision and discussion process of the article and can provide insight into editorial decisions and controversies. By viewing the editorial history and discussion pages, readers can learn about different opinions and controversies on a topic and assess the reliability of the article according to their own judgment.


2. Interesting point

Despite the multiple measures taken by Wikipedia to ensure the accuracy and reliability of its content, it still has a number of potential problems and challenges. Such as the subjectivity and bias of Wikipedia editors: due to the open nature of Wikipedia, different contributors may have different opinions and biases, which may cause the content of some topics to deviate from the objective truth. Readers need to be critical, and for controversial topics it's best to consult other sources for comparison.

Then there is the rate of update of Wikipedia articles: Wikipedia content can be edited and modified at any time, so there may be some degree of delay in the accuracy and freshness of articles. For certain rapidly changing topics or recent events, it may be necessary to consult other sources that are more current.


3. Discussion

Wikipedia allows anonymous editing, which makes it difficult to determine the background and expertise of contributors. Despite the mechanisms of community review, it is possible that inaccurate or misleading information may exist. Do you think anonymous editing should be abolished?

Comments

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