W5: Can we trust Wikipedia?


Being a source in which thousands of people from all over the world can participate, Wikipedia's information cannot always be a reliable source, considering it is not a primary source (because all its content is made up of different sources) it can be used to get references that are not reliable. Apart from that many times there may be people who want to edit the topic of the article for their own benefit, not always being objective.

   Although the articles of Wikipedia are always watched by most of those who conform, it cannot always be aware of everything and sometimes some articles suffer from vandalism making the article is not reliable, the editors of course trying to correct it as soon as possible, but sometimes for various reasons they cannot correct it at the moment, causing days or even months go by without being able to fix it.

   Even Wikipedia itself tells us “We do not expect you to trust us”, since being updated periodically by thousands of people cannot always be right, even though they try to point out how the articles are in each moment. I think that when we use Wikipedia to do some research, we must check the status of the article and check the sources it contains, thus knowing if it is a reliable article or not.

Garcia Guillen Ana Gabriela.

Comments

  1. Jina ParkApril 6, 2019 at 7:33 AM

    I agree with you. No matter how many contributors to Wikipedia are watching the document, it may be impossible to find it immediately when someone has ruined the document. In particular, I have seen a lot of articles in Korean Wikipedia with inaccurate references and personal comments. I think it is the role of the Wikipedia user to improve the wrong document. Also, when reading the content of Wikipedia, it is the responsibility of the Wikipedia user to make sure that the reference is correct.

    - Jina Park / 박진아 -

    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