W5. Can we trust Wikipedia? - JiWon Min




 Some parts are reliable, but I don't think they are as credible as thesis. 

 First of all, I will explain why I said I can trust Wikipedia. When we edit an article on Wikipedia, we type reference. Thanks to that we can secure the reliability of our articles. In addition, even if there is some erroneous information or controversial issue, it can be fixed through discussion among users. If there is a lack of format and content for the article, ask the editor of the article for correction and improvement. So our articles are credible. 



 However, there is a limit to the fact that discussions and warning messages (about the lack of articles) can not ensure that their quality improves to a reliable level. Indeed, many articles on Wikipedia have warning messages that mean 'they are not professional and reliable.' I think the reason why this happens so often is because no one except the editor has a direct obligation to the quality of the article. The editors also may feel less responsible for working on an anonymous on ' anyone can edit ' online encyclopedia. 




 But, the thesis is different. There are people with the obligation to work with their real names in a reputable organization and to give feedback until the thesis is completed. So I believe that we can partly trust Wikipedia, but it is not as credible as thesis.



Comments

  1. UnknownApril 8, 2018 at 7:13 AM

    Apparently, academic journals and thesis are credible. Than wikipedia. I totally agree with you there. It's because the writing process itself is logical and a research process. But on the contrary, I think Wikipedia is quite reliable. Because in writing, the process of deleting the wrong information, importing the information from a particular source, is like a thesis, and there is only a difference between a large number of non-specialized people.

    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