#5. Can we trust the Wikipedia?

Jeong Seo Yoon, 정서윤

This week I looked at the credibility of Wikipedia and its critics. I think it is quite reliable. Especially compared to other online encyclopedias.

Wikipedia, in particular, requires accurate references to its credibility (sometimes, in the case of non-reference edits, you are asked to kindly add references from anonymous partners). Interestingly, some people feel like a bond.

In Korea, tired users of this strict reference have created a community called 'Namuwiki'. Obviously, the information here is not credible (although many freshmen do work on a Namuwiki source). There are controversies that Wikipedia has been trying to lay out. Sexism and regionalism are often used as humorous or biased perspectives, and vandalism often occurs. There is also a lack of equity in sanctions. In the first place, it is judged that the arguments that are numerically disadvantageous for the debate to conclude with majority rule rather than the democratic process are not worth discussing. It is safe to say that wooden wiki does not play the role of an encyclopedia, but rather contributes to the formation of a specific eco-chamber.

It was like a question in class last week, why is the Wikipedia and the community largely made up of men? Perhaps the answer would be that the social roles expected of women did not diverse. So, is it a problem that there are many participants from one gender?

In a culture where gender equality is not fully achieved, there is a certain gender's position. This is that we may be dealing with issues with a biased view that we do not recognize. Of course, through Wikipedia's rules, we do not describe directly biased ideas. However, there are things that are not recorded because they do not describe specific facts or are not just areas of interest.

Although Wikipedia in the U.S. did not feel this feature, it felt some different when editing Wikipedia in Korea. This is when I tried to edit Wiki about Ada Lovelace, the world's first programmer. The Korean Wikipedia clearly describes the categories of her life, among other things, marriage, miscarriage, and death, and the controversy over her achievements has been the mainstay of the document. On the other hand, Wikipedia in the U.S. detailed her academic achievements and contributions. Of course, it's not that the contents of Wikipedia in Korea are wrong. This is reasonable because all the facts are written down. But wouldn't that be one of the biased editing methods if you only described the controversial topic without the technology of other facts that already exist?

Question. 
Can it be said that not describing a particular fact is also me among biased editing?