W5. Can we trust wikipedia? - Kim Byung Chan
I think Wikipedia is trustworthy. There are many articles, reporters, and managers in Wikipedia. Although they are not professionals, the number of managers is very high. Wikipedia's information is more reliable when there are a lot of people who use it. Because they try to monitor each other and improve the quality of the articles. If you have the wrong information, you can fix it, add the missing content, and improve the quality of the information. Wikipedia's information becomes more and more reliable with the efforts of many people, Like 'a little makes a mickle.'
Wikipedia also takes the source seriously. Wikipedia will ask you if you have edited only a small part of the article, what you have modified, and if you have made the source. Especially in the case of photographs, it is difficult to use unless it is copyrighted or disclosed. Because Wikipedia is sensitive to the source of the material, I think it is much more reliable than other unfounded information.
But it is not entirely credible for Wikipedia to regard sources as important. Wikipedia only encourages you to write a source. That is, it is possible to add or modify information without having to mention the source. It is believed that these parts are being warded off by many administrators. Wikipedia's information is obviously faithful, but we need to be alert and critical perspective on information that is not properly written.
Comments
Post a Comment