W10. What would make writing on Wikipedia easier for me?

1. Summary
 What makes it easy to write articles on Wikipedia? I draw two things. The first is based on thorough references. The second is a number of internet news articles that are needed for citation.

2. Interesting Point
 First, exhaustive reference can be questioned by others. "Does the principle of thorough reference make it hard to write articles?" My answer is "NO". The need for thorough reference means, on the contrary, that it is easier to write if you only find the materials (News, PDF, Book, and so on) you need to cite. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We do not need to get into our thinking as we do in school reports. When the so-called 'Brainficial(뇌피셜, Brain+official)' is written in Wikipedia, the encyclopedia forgets its original purpose. If you look at my editing records, most of them correct the references and fix the errors and dead external links. Identify unidentified statements. This is the first element that makes it easy to edit Wikipedia.

 Secondly, the materials needed for this reference, especially the news articles on the internet. I've done about 120 edits so far, most of which are based on Internet news stories. Internet news articles are mostly credible and therefore a good source. The only thing to keep in mind is that when you edit English Wikipedia, you need to change the article titles to English.

3. Discussion Point
 Nonetheless, bringing Internet articles is an issue. I was warned about not bringing articles from yellow media about a month ago. Since then, I have not been bringing articles from the press that are no longer classified as yellow media. But I have a question. What is the criteria for screening the yellow media? Does the yellow media unconditionally send only articles that stimulate people's peripheral nerves? I do not think I am. What are the criteria of the yellow media you think?

Comments

  1. UnknownMay 11, 2018 at 9:01 AM

    There is no perfect reference without picture and video, audio.
    Internet news can be a good reference in Wikipedia. But someone don't agree with me.
    So Wikipedia needs reference specialist who can mediate people who argue about the reference.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 유태준(taejoonYou)May 11, 2018 at 11:06 PM

    I agree with you. Not only Wikipedia, but also all kinds of writing require accurate sources and reasons. Without these elements, the article is unreliable and therefore unsubstantiated. That is why the argument is not convincing.

    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

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

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