W5. Can we trust Wikipedia?


1. Summary
 It is the age of 'sea of ​​information'. From newspapers to academic papers, we can easily acquire the information we want when we feel like it. Information that was hard to get until just 10 years ago can now be retrieved with just one smartphone that anyone can put in their pocket. The development of information accessibility has broken the era of paper encyclopedias and served as a driving force for a new era of Wikipedia. This new encyclopedia does not have to print a trial to get new information, nor must pay expensive money for a purchase. At the same time, however, Wikipedia faced new challenges. Can we trust Wikipedia?
 The first issue related to reliability is the problem of experts and non-experts. Larry Sanger, the early co-founder of Wikipedia, said in 2006, "I made Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia for the first time in my life, but after a year of frustration, "He said." We opened a new encyclopedia, Citizen Diem, that only professionals can write. The second issue is that edits with mischievous or malicious intent can be done if they like. On Feb. 28, 2017, there was a case in which the document damage on the document was exposed to the other site in the Korean Wikipedia.1)

2. Interesting point
 I am interested in issues related to the weight of experts and non-experts. I think that when Wikipedia was first created, and when a lot of information was being entered, experts would not be familiar with the internet environment like Wikipedia. So, they would have been naturally excluded. Also, even if experts are involved in Wikipedia, I think it is very difficult for them to maintain neutrality. As you study a lot to become an expert in the field, you will surely have the value you seek in this field. However, this personal value should be strictly excluded from the Wikipedia. These are the reasons why experts have not been able to participate in Wikipedia.

3. Discussion point
 I think that 'Book' and 'Wikipedia' must coexist to solve this problem. The value of the encyclopedia and the scholarly values ​​that scholars have studied cannot be put in the same bowl. Scholars think that to inform people of their thoughts, people should approach people with books other than Wikipedia. What do you think?

Comments

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