Can we trust Wikipedia?

Can we trust Wikipedia? 


I think that it is maybe 70% trusted in the Wikipedia.
Many people use, write and edit in the Wiki. , but we don't know that who is creating the document and the information.
There are experts who write in the Wiki and users who are not experts.
They are creating the information in free.
I think it makes the information confused. Because people's thinking are different and different value.
It is fighting that “What is right”. I think that the Wiki is mixed the information which some people know and writes things. But it is the important thing. The other have chance that knows the information they don't know.
The greatest strength of Wikipedia is free sharing the information. People know that they don't know information, and they want to know what they want. It is good position. I give th marks 70%.
But 30% is fixed the things. People are concentrated in what they are interested. It is good. But it appears in the Wiki.
There are a lot of information in the wiki. It is inconvenient not to have the information that is special thing. (about other country's culture, food, language and so on) because people's thinking is different.
I think we should interest the information widely.

Comments

  1. 방민현 minhyunApril 5, 2019 at 8:45 AM

    I partly agree with you. If I could mark, maybe I would give 90 points. The information might be confusing in some ways, but I think Wiki people are doing their best to fix it. And as the result, I also have some edits reverted-it's quite embarrassing, but I thought my experience would be a good example-in some ways.
    But I like the point that you said 'people are concentrated in what they like.' Also on the Reagle's reading, people really have a tendency to edit and watch what they like. And even have a fight for what they like. Wikipedia needs more variety in information. What category do you think people are most stuck in?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 이예원 (yewon Lee)April 11, 2019 at 2:27 AM

      I think people like that what they know and what they want. I don't know actually that what they want it in detail. but I agree that people have a fight for the information that they like and they want.

      Delete

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