W5. blog topic: Can we trust Wikipedia? - Jongchan kim


1. Summary

In this week, we learned about the scope of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not just a dictionary. It is a dictionary that has more meaning than just defined. What this means is not a random set of information. This includes the dictionary meaning but is a platform with a variety of different thoughts and meanings added to the people. Wikipedia helps clarify what the internal and external elements are linked and trying to explain. It is also not that Wikipedia is a collection of quotations. Wikipedia has the distinction of not being censored. Accordingly, it is still rejected in many countries.

2. Interesting point


I think I can trust Wikipedia. It is not an encyclopedia made up of experts, as we read in the previous chapter, but it is growing into a platform that is professional due to the efforts of its founders. Therefore, the credibility of the articles is very high and it has grown into a site that attracts many people from all over the world. We also have a similar type of platform to Wikipedia, the namu Wikipedia. However, namu wikis are very unreliable. The reason is that unlike Wikipedia, there is no professional management and the main gossip. Wikipedia is certainly different from the namu Wikipedia. This is because the mere gossip is immediately deleted and managed. The reason why I believe in Wikipedia is not simply because of its expertise. There is a reason why people use it a lot. Wikipedia is a correctable site for mistakes. What many people use here is that they are being modified by people with expertise. One of the reasons for Wikipedia's low development in Korea is the Naver Knowledge in. Although many Koreans use this word, it is not trustworthy. The reason is that the wrong information can not be modified by those who wish to modify it.

3. Discussion Point


As we have learned this time, Wikipedia is maintained in its trust by a variety of rules. However, these rules do not keep trust. If you think you can not trust Wikipedia, why do you? I think Wikipedia is a highly reliable platform. As I mentioned above, I think Wikipedia is reliable for these reasons : the large number of users that can be modified, the professionally operated sites and so on.


Comments

  1. UnknownApril 6, 2018 at 11:45 PM

    I think that what many people use can do to the reliability. It may be too slow to think that millions of people will all use Wikipedia for the right purpose. Is it because Wikipedia has doubts about its credibility because there are users who are aiming at mischief or malicious harm?

    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