W5 blog topic: Can we trust Wikipedia? - Jong Hoon Park

2012047790 박종훈


What is important is that we don't trust Wikipedia 100 percent, but we can trust it enough. Wikipedia is used by an unspecified number of people and is guaranteed to be anonymous. In a way, this word may not be credible. On the contrary, however, anyone can be trusted. As of 2018, the world has so much information that it is called a flood of information that most of it is based on the Web. Under these circumstances, it is very important to selectively choose information to convey the correct information. If you leave these tasks to a particular person, the quality of information will vary greatly depending on the person's ability to do it. It can also be expensive. Especially if he is an expert. However, if a large number of non-specialized people like Wikipedia collect information, it is dangerous, but it is also inexpensive, and it can be enhanced through a number of discussions and disciplined discussions.

So Wikipedia has made great attempts, and the result is not a bad success. Of course it is currently underway. I think it is proof that many people are writing Wikipedia and are satisfied. On top of that, the theme of Wikipedia's criticism and its article, " Article on Relivable Sours, " has once again learned how efficient Wikipedia is in these systems. Starting from the source of the information, Wikipedia has focused on the problems of the past, times, academic issues, individual bias, and biased information in many cases. This is one of the ways that Wikipedia is trusted for many people. Of course, I learned about it from my professor and learned about it naturally because it was one of the themes I learned in class, but many people who were more interested in Wikipedia have come to believe in these articles.

In particular, in the article ' Criticism of Wikipedia, ' there were many cases and many interesting parts. There were many issues to be considered, including political criticism, criticism of the lack of scientific data, and the lack of factual checks in methodologies. I started to think more about the bias myself, and I promised to be more cautious about what I was going to do when I wrote the wikis. How about you guys that parts of you are most likely to come into contact with and interesting?

Comments

  1. UnknownApril 8, 2018 at 7:39 AM

    I do not entirely agree with the idea that it is not costly when non-specialists gather a lot of information. Of course, there will be small costs on the part of information producers. On the part of the consumer, however, the more information produced by non-specialists, the more time-consuming they will incur to determine the facts and accuracy of the information. I think this relationship between producers and consumers makes Wikipedia unreliable enough. -JiWon Min

    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