W5. Can we trust Wikipedia?

As Wikipedia is open place to everyone from editing and adding information, this problem is only fair to be controversial. I think it is because of the duplicity of collective intelligence. Collective intelligence, Wikipedia's one of the advantages, make lots of people think and discuss about the information and keep adding or deleting information to make that information perfect. But if we think this different, this means from lots of people's opinions the reference or source of that information could be unclear. In my thought, we couldn't trust Wikipedia 100 percent, but we could trust Wikipedia mostly. But we should read and think and then accept information that we justify it is right, rather than just read and trust information.

The first reason why I think we could trust Wikipedia is Wikipedia's policy. There are strict rules to edit or enter new information in Wikipedia. If people do not follow those rules, their edits could be deleted or they could be warned to Wikipedia managers. Some rules sometimes look too strict but because of those rules we couldn't touch the information in Wikipedia indiscriminately. So because of rules in Wikipedia, we could trust Wikipedia.

The Second reason is, as I mentioned above, collective intelligence. Collective intelligence in Wikipedia still has duplicity but I think it works more in better ways. We could talk about controversial information together and find middle ground. Also if some information has unclear or unreliable reference, other users delete that information of request writer to add clear reference. From these reason I think we could trust Wikipedia. And if we want to trust Wikipedia more definitely, we should put effort into using clear and reliable references and following the policy of Wikipedia.

Comments

  1. 허연주(Yeonju Heo)April 6, 2018 at 3:20 AM

    I totally agree with you. The strict rules of Wikipedia often annoy me when I edit articles in Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia points out the slightest part that I made a mistake. But I think that such strict rules make Wikipedia reliable.

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownApril 8, 2018 at 8:00 AM

    I think so. As we experienced on Wikipedia, there are so many strict and specific rules. Some users of Wikipedia may be reluctant to these rules, but definitely this rules make Wikipedia's reliability better. Of course if Wikipedia have rules which is not that strict, users of Wikipedia will write something more easily. But we can trust Wikipedia because it isn't.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

W3. Why do you think people use Wikipedia? Why do others write for it? - Sun bo Sim

 Why do you think people use Wikipedia? Why do others write for it? 1. Summary It is quite natural that the main purpose people use Wikipedia is to get information. So I thought about why people choose Wikipedia for getting information. I think the first reason is the reliability of information in Wikipedia. We have many other sources of getting information. We can search for information scattered on the web through search tools such as Google or Naver. But we do not have the ability to ensure that such data are reliable. However, people prefer Wikipedia because it looks at its slogan " The Free Encyclopedia, " believing it may have the character of an encyclopedia. I also believe that Wikipedia's credibility is enhanced by the fact that its information is constantly being edited through the process of collective intelligence. 2. Interesting Point Most people use Wikipedia to get information. However, some people like to make new articles and give information s...
Read more

W5. Can we trust Wikipedia? Yun-Jin Kim

Then I want to ask. Can we trust News? I think Wikipedia is based on sources. Every time we edit on Wikipedia we need the sources. If we don’t put sources, the information we wrote would be deleted.   So I think asking ‘How can we trust Wikipedia’ is kind of similar to ‘How can we trust News’. I know there could be subjective opinion on Wikipedia. If the topic is unpopular, the public opinion doesn’t focus, there’s could be no feedback and that makes Wiki subjective. for this reason, we have to think before we choose the topic in Wiki. If the topic isn’t famous enough and have no sources, we should think this information isn’t sure enough. but if the topic has clear sources we can have a trust on that information. I think it is not important to ask, ‘is the Wikipedia trustful’. It is important to ask ‘is this information on Wikipedia has a exact source?’.
Read more

W6. How important is it to be civil online on the Internet?-Ji Young An

These days lots of controversial problems are rising. And because of those problems, people fight on the Internet. But I think most of problems happen because of a lack of civic attitudes. As I highlighted the discussion section of Wikipedia last post, talking together with having civic attitudes is very important point. On the Internet lots of people meet. And this means all of them has different thinking and experiences different cultures. So it is certain that everyone's opinion is different. But I think from this difference, the collective intelligence comes. So I think this difference is very important. But sadly, because of this difference some people fight, just arguing their opinion is one hundred percent right. This attitude is nothing good to our collective intelligence. To develop collective intelligence, people need the civic attitudes. Not just persisting stubbornly they should talk and listen, trying to understand other people. If they talk their opinion or thinking...
Read more