W5. Can we trust Wikipedia? Cho jiwon
1.Summary
Wikipedia has many advantages as a representative example of collective intelligence. Numerous people provide instant feedback on information. You can also share a tremendous amount of information. But it gets that much criticism. Reasons for the criticism are criticism of content and criticism of community.
In content criticism, there is a problem with authority first. Editors are amateurs. That's why the content they provide is not professional. Secondly, Wikipedia has a lot of missing information. I compared Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica with science articles. The result is that Wikipedia has four shortcomings and the encyclopedia britanica has three shortcomings. Fourth, quality is a problem. Depending on the type of information, it is difficult to interpret information written as false information. For example, people's content is difficult to classify because their authenticity is not accurate. Therefore, the process is delayed.
There are conflicts of interest in community criticism issues. A typical example is sexuality. The problem is discrimination against women. In an article on sexual harassment involving the Gamergate debate at Wikipedia, the January 2015 arbitration committee banned five feminist editors and argued that the forbidden editor was treated unfairly. The following are problems with the editing process. A typical example of this problem is a rule problem. Wikipedia has set excessive rules to reduce flaws. This rule puts strain on the creator to take liberty.
It is the 'source' that Wikipedia strictly obeys because of these various problems. There are many rules for sources. I will list some of them. First, the year must be the latest. Older materials may not contain the latest facts. Second, academic data must be authentic. Research is not controversial. Third, opinions should be neutral. Fourth, there is no content that is generated by its own source user. These posts are not reliable.
2.Interesting point
It seems that the problem of collective intellect clearly appears from the criticism of Wikipedia. There are many convenience points due to collective intelligence, but there are also many problems. A typical problem is reliability. Many people have specialists and amateurs. They are all about the same content, but their credibility is different. Of course, the contents of the experts are correct. But because of anonymity, we do not know who is an expert. There is also a problem in interpreting the contents. The contention that many people claim to be right makes interpretation difficult. Especially in matters involving people. Even if a person does not make a mistake, he or she is said to have done so. This reliability issue makes it hard for us to trust Wikipedia.
3.Discussion point
The Korean wiki has a lot of content without sources. However, the sanctions seem not to be serious. The contents are all left and can not be erased. Even the content with the source is often unreliable. This lowers confidence in the Korean wiki. Does the Korean wiki follow a different set of rules than Wikipedia's source? I think the current phenomenon is a problem. What is the opinion of our class students?
Wikipedia has many advantages as a representative example of collective intelligence. Numerous people provide instant feedback on information. You can also share a tremendous amount of information. But it gets that much criticism. Reasons for the criticism are criticism of content and criticism of community.
In content criticism, there is a problem with authority first. Editors are amateurs. That's why the content they provide is not professional. Secondly, Wikipedia has a lot of missing information. I compared Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica with science articles. The result is that Wikipedia has four shortcomings and the encyclopedia britanica has three shortcomings. Fourth, quality is a problem. Depending on the type of information, it is difficult to interpret information written as false information. For example, people's content is difficult to classify because their authenticity is not accurate. Therefore, the process is delayed.
There are conflicts of interest in community criticism issues. A typical example is sexuality. The problem is discrimination against women. In an article on sexual harassment involving the Gamergate debate at Wikipedia, the January 2015 arbitration committee banned five feminist editors and argued that the forbidden editor was treated unfairly. The following are problems with the editing process. A typical example of this problem is a rule problem. Wikipedia has set excessive rules to reduce flaws. This rule puts strain on the creator to take liberty.
It is the 'source' that Wikipedia strictly obeys because of these various problems. There are many rules for sources. I will list some of them. First, the year must be the latest. Older materials may not contain the latest facts. Second, academic data must be authentic. Research is not controversial. Third, opinions should be neutral. Fourth, there is no content that is generated by its own source user. These posts are not reliable.
2.Interesting point
It seems that the problem of collective intellect clearly appears from the criticism of Wikipedia. There are many convenience points due to collective intelligence, but there are also many problems. A typical problem is reliability. Many people have specialists and amateurs. They are all about the same content, but their credibility is different. Of course, the contents of the experts are correct. But because of anonymity, we do not know who is an expert. There is also a problem in interpreting the contents. The contention that many people claim to be right makes interpretation difficult. Especially in matters involving people. Even if a person does not make a mistake, he or she is said to have done so. This reliability issue makes it hard for us to trust Wikipedia.
3.Discussion point
The Korean wiki has a lot of content without sources. However, the sanctions seem not to be serious. The contents are all left and can not be erased. Even the content with the source is often unreliable. This lowers confidence in the Korean wiki. Does the Korean wiki follow a different set of rules than Wikipedia's source? I think the current phenomenon is a problem. What is the opinion of our class students?
I also think Korean Wikipedia has a problem. Therefore, I think that the proportion of Koreans who use Wikipedia in the world is also small. I think many Koreans will use Wikipedia usefully if they decide to follow the rules.
ReplyDelete