W5. Can we trust Wikipedia? / posted by Sojeong Yeon

   The question 'Can we trust Wikipedia' is related to how accurate information is contained in the Wiki articles. In other words, the matter of reliability is a problem of accuracy. As far as I have ever used it, not always, but I think Wikipedia is a reliable site. It's a comparatively good encyclopedia. The Wikipedia have many practices and regulations, and norms to gain the reliability and accuracy.

 
 

   First, we can trust Wikipedia to some extent because of 'reference'. People who want to write or edit the article are encouraged to use information from trusted source like an official organization, not from cafe, blog etc. and to add that reference as evidence. The reliable resources are peer-reviewed journals, college publications, university-level textbooks, and magazines, periodicals, and books published by reputable publishers whom many people can agree on. The Wikipedia also sets the rules for editing and regulates the creation and editing of some documents.

   Furthermore, there are 'citation and verifiability article maintenance templates' like {{Citation needed}}, {{Failed verification}}, {{Irrelevant citation}}, {{Quote without source}}, {{Request quotation}}. Anyone may question an uncited claim by inserting a simple {{Citation needed}} tag to ensure that all Wikipedia content is verifiable, A "Template: Citation needed" tag is a request for another editor to verify a statement. A "Template: Verify sources" indicates that the article has a large number of references in need of verification. These templates indicates that there is missing or problematic reference and it makes people reading the article think once more about accuracy.

   Second, the Wikipedia follows the rule of "Neutral point of view." We can read a view of both sides or multiple viewpoints about an article, not only one specific view of argument. So people can get diverse, non-biased and objective vision. If the article shows only part of it, it may be tell half the truth. There is also a record of editing and debate page on controversial topics and arguments. The revisions and discussions make readers reassess their information and let him/her check it for himself.

 

   Finally, I have a question. No matter how formal and reliable the organization is, the information or claims it provides are not necessarily true or accurate. In the case that the fact which it is widely accepted but it is not true or accurate is regarded as truth, how can we distinguish it true/accurate or not? Even if the Wikipedia articles refer to information from a reputable institution, can we always trust it? I would like to discuss this issue together.