[5] Can we trust Wikipedia?

Can we trust Wikipedia? 

  Did I trust Wikipedia? In a short think, I would probably say no. I thought it's reference is not so good to be used in some assignments, and other people near me also didn't trust Wikipedia with the similar reasons like mine. I think the point that 'simple human-beings are editing' is the biggest reason for distrusting Wikipedia.

  But is it? I've learned many sources and some laws that thoroughly check the references and the citation. Even shocked from the delicate standard about everything in Wikipedia. For example we saw a part of 'notability' in yesterday class, and there were so many sub-folders about just one word notability. And even more, there was a place that gathered the misleading or unclear information called 'cleaning-up listing'. Every people in Wikipedia are very careful and passionate about the articles. Not only reverting or adding some edits, they also read the references and check them if they're truly relative to the information that are edited. 

  Yep, maybe just human-beings can have some flaws, but they endlessly fix and develop that flaws resulting to a small but big progress. So, yes we can trust Wikipedia. It's quite correct. Because of the hard try to bigger goods, together, Wikipedia is reliable enough to our assignments. The key is the Collective Intelligence, I think.  

And I have one question, even Wiki people are trying hard to fix some bugs and make progress to Wikipedia, there are still many information that lack references or are incorrect. What more things can we do to catch more specific bugs to improve the quality of articles? 

Comments

  1. Jeong Seo YoonApril 7, 2019 at 5:14 AM

    I agree with you in part. Especially in that only accurate information does not exist each time.

    To make up for these things, I think it is most important for anonymous collaborators to help each other. In fact, I got a few kind messages every week editing. Most of them have added additional references or modified the contents. In this format of discussion, I can post more accurate information. It may take a little while, but I think it's definitely the best way.

    Also, I think this class we take is one of the ways to make Wikipedia a more accurate encyclopedia. we are learning about Wikipedia every week. At least those who have taken this class will try to use Wikipedia properly and get accurate knowledge in the future.

    Finally, Wikipedia's operation resembles democracy. Isn't it like taking time to get the right information is hard to get freedom right away?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discuss Reagle’s chapters 3-4

Discuss Reagle’s chapters 3-4 I read the Reagle's chapters 3-4. I find two opinion. One thing is how to collaborate people on Wikipedia. Other is how to make open community on Wikipedia. How to collaborate people on Wikipedia. In the case of the English Wikipedia, there is a collaborative culture that asks its participants to assume two postures: a stance of neutral point of view on matters of knowledge, and a stance of good faith toward one’s fellow contributors. I think that people know the mood that must keep the rule on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia's mood is light, people write the light writing. Other is how to make open community on Wikipedia. I remember the discussion that Why the Women is smaller that the men on Wikipedia. I've heard from others the reason that women don't use it much because the community isn't friendly to women. I think that we try to create Wikipedia to use all the people no matter that the sex. I think it's a process ...
Read more

Discuss Reagle's Chapter3-4

In  the Reagle  Chapter 3-4, the troll and the ignore rules were impressive.  Troll is the one who destroys teamwork and leads the team to ruin.  Trolls, which are negative characters, help develop Wikipedia. Wikipedia finds the wrong information generated by the troll. And the information is modified by others. In that process, it results in more information production. There is an outlaw, similar to a troll. The lawless ignores all regulations, including copyright and reference. Like Trolls, they help develop Wikipedia. They are free to edit because they are out of regulation. The free edited content is modified by others, including attaching references and deleting content that is caught in copyright issues. Wikipedia develops as it takes care of these types of people.
Read more

Discuss Reagle’s chapter 5

Discuss Reagle’s chapter 5 It is hard to understand this chapter. When I used the Wikipedia, I thought I don't need to group communication. Because the communication space is hidden, so I don't find it. I'm hard to find the communication space on Wikipedia. I think that the Wikipedia communication is not good at working in Korea. There are not many advisers on Korea Wikipedia. The Wiktionary definitions for consensus speak of “general agreement,” “without active opposition to the proposed course of action. I found it important for members to reach an agreement on Wikipedia. It's not an easy task, but I think it can produce a good results. So I think that's why Wikipedia exists. It can appear in a chat window, and go and talk to the other person's chat room. Perhaps it ends up as a personal versus personal matter, but I think that's also an agreement. If conversation does not take place, I don't think an agreement is reached either. Wiki...
Read more