W5. Can we trust Wikipedia? -Sun Bo Sim

1. Summary
To find out if Wikipedia is trustworthy, I looked at its critical views. The reliability issue was so controversial that Wikipedia had a article titled " Criticism of Wikipedia. " "Criticism of Wikipedia" Looking at the article Criticism of Wikipedia, I thought there were two main criteria that could determine if there were any credibility. The first is accuracy and the second is neutrality.
 Based on two criteria, I decided to think about Wikipedia's data. The first thing that comes to mind when looking at the accuracy is the source of the data. Wikipedia requires quite an exact source. In particular, it requires a large source of information from the English Wikipedia. As you read the article, it is always referenced at the end of each sentence or at the end of at least one paragraph. Using Wikipedia, I learned that Wikipedia requires a strict source of information. There is a warning in the article of few sources. And as I edit my article, the sentences that don't leave references are erased. Based on these facts I thought Wikipedia was reliable in terms of its accuracy. I think the factors affecting neutrality are political factors, differences in the gender of religious elements, and so on. People have to put a little bit of their value into the content of the article. I saw there are warnings in Wikipedia for articles that may be a little tilted towards one side. So neutrality is considered a minor issue, and I think Wikipedia is reliable after all.

2. Interesting Point
Interesting Point is Gender bias in Wikipedia. Before I looked into Wikipedia's neutrality, I thought political and religious differences were major factors in its neutrality. But when I looked at Wikipedia's neutrality, I found something interesting. Only 8.5 percent to 16 percent of Wikipedia's editors are women who attempt editing.

3. Discussion Point

Discussion point is How to increase female editors. When we looked at gender bias, it showed that women do not participate in Wikipedia for a number of reasons. And Wikipedia officials also tried to solve the problem, but they did not produce good results. We need to debate this issue because it is necessary to remove the bias before it becomes a more complete Wikipedia.

Comments

  1. UnknownApril 8, 2018 at 12:40 AM

    It is very surprising that there are so few female editors. But how can they increase their participation? It would also be interesting to see if there are any obstacles to female editors' access to Wikipedia.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UnknownApril 8, 2018 at 8:10 AM


      I know that there are many factors that are obstacles to female editors. One of them said that the culture of Wikipedia was sexist.

      Delete
  2. UnknownApril 8, 2018 at 8:00 AM

    Thanks to you, I am learning new facts. I wonder why there are so few female editors. It is interesting to see how this matter will flow forward.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UnknownApril 8, 2018 at 8:11 AM


      You are right. I think that solving this problem can be a Wikipedia that everyone can use like the slogan of the free encyclopedia.

      Delete

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