Can We Trust Wikipedia?

Can We Trust Wikipedia?


To begin with, I think Wikipedia is reliable.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is editable to all the public. It is a place where many people can freely upload and unload data. Because of this, people might think, 'Isn't information less reliable because ordinary people, not professionals, edit information?' But this is not something to worry about.

The first reason is that Wikipedia, as mentioned earlier, is a place where everyone can edit information. So even if one false piece of information is posted on Wikipedia, the people who discover it can fill the space in your better direction or with more reliable information. In other words, the fact that 'everyone can edit Wikipedia' is a factor that can serve as a merit rather than a disadvantage in Wikipedia space.

The second reason is that Wikipedia's information clearly states the source. When people add information to Wikipedia, they can use the Quote function to add where this information originated. That's why those who want more and more information about information can get more and more information from the references that editors have added editors.

These various reasons make Wikipedia a reliable place.

But there is one question. What should I do if reference is not added? Of course most of Wikipedia's information has references. However, there are editors who do not add references to the information they add. Is the information that these people add reliable? How can we tell this apart?

Comments

  1. Gabriela GarciaApril 6, 2019 at 7:50 AM

    Trying to answer your question I think that when we find information in Wikipedia without references we can search where that information came from and add the appropriate references, because we are already part of this community, but if we search and don’t find nothing, we can ask them to eliminate the article for lack of reliable sources, so the people who do not know how Wikipedia works can avoid using articles that are not reliable, making Wikipedia a more reliable place. -Ana G.

    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