Reading7 (Minji Jeong)

[Summary]

Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that allows anyone to edit its articles. The reliability of Wikipedia has been a subject of debate since its inception. While Wikipedia has strict guidelines for editing and citing sources, errors and biases can still occur. Various studies have shown that the accuracy of Wikipedia articles is generally high, but there are also concerns about vandalism, deliberate misinformation, and systemic biases in the editorial process. To address these concerns, Wikipedia has implemented measures such as flagging controversial articles and restricting editing permissions for certain pages. Despite these efforts, the reliability of Wikipedia remains a matter of ongoing discussion and scrutiny.
Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to ensure the accuracy and verifiability of its content. Reliable sources are those that have a reputation for accuracy and have been peer-reviewed, edited, or fact-checked by experts in the relevant field. Primary sources, such as government reports or scientific studies, are generally considered reliable sources, but they need to be used carefully and interpreted correctly. Secondary sources, such as textbooks, news articles, and scholarly journals, are also considered reliable sources, but the quality of the source should be evaluated based on factors such as the author's expertise, the publication's reputation, and the potential for bias. In general, sources should be recent, independent, and verifiable. Wikipedia editors are encouraged to use high-quality sources and to cite them correctly, and to avoid relying on sources that are unreliable, biased, or self-published. If there is a dispute about the reliability of a source, editors can discuss it on the article's talk page or seek guidance from other editors or Wikipedia policies.


[Interesting point]


One interesting point about the text the emphasis on using reliable sources to ensure the accuracy and verifiability of Wikipedia's content, and the guidelines for evaluating the quality of those sources. This highlights the importance of critical thinking and fact-checking in online research and the potential for misinformation and bias even in seemingly credible sources.

 


[Discussion angle]


   How can we balance the benefits of allowing anyone to edit Wikipedia articles with the risks of inaccuracies, biases, and vandalism, and what measures can be taken to improve the reliability of Wikipedia as a source of information?

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