W.5 Can we trust Wikipedia? HanBin Bae
As Extra posting said earlier, Wikipedia has its own rules.
Of course, Wikipedia content is not mandatory for professional verification, so there may be enough problems with the reliability of information.
However, many people also benefit from providing feedback and suggestions on Wikipedia's content, allowing a more neutral glossary of terms to be explained from a variety of perspectives. Reliability can be improved by using references, additional links or quotes. Wikipedia can use these features. I think the results from a large number of partnerships or competition could be either better or closer to the correct conclusion than a few of the best minds do. I think this is a force on collective intelligence.
Of course, Wikipedia content is not mandatory for professional verification, so there may be enough problems with the reliability of information.
However, many people also benefit from providing feedback and suggestions on Wikipedia's content, allowing a more neutral glossary of terms to be explained from a variety of perspectives. Reliability can be improved by using references, additional links or quotes. Wikipedia can use these features. I think the results from a large number of partnerships or competition could be either better or closer to the correct conclusion than a few of the best minds do. I think this is a force on collective intelligence.
Your blog is related to last week's assignment 'Reagle's Chapters 1-2'. I also thought about the reliability issue of Wikipedia. Still, it is sensitive to Wikipedia's reliability. But I think Wikipedia has high reliability. As you mentioned, Wikipedia can gain reliability by using several reference links or quotes. In addition, I think that maintaining the high accessibility of the web page and keeping the spelling well is a way to improve the reliability of Wikipedia. Furthermore, I think it is a way to make information more reliable.
ReplyDeleteProviding feedback can lead to reliability problems. Because the feedback is not accurate. This is because the provider of feedback may be an amateur. There is also a bias in content as a matter of collective intelligence. It is said that collective intelligence is not necessarily right. There are a lot of these issues pointed out in this week articles. I would like to mention a little more about that part.
ReplyDelete