W5. Can we trust Wikipedia?
I think Wikipedia is partly reliable.
First, the trusted part in Wikipedia's content is things(matters) like plants and animals, materials, and machines. They have consistent and unified properties, something that anyone can easily influence, and over time the intrinsic meaning does not change.
For example, there is a explanation about deer in Wiki. Simply, Wiki defines a large-eyed animal with horns, four-legged, bone, brown fur. But what if there was a new animal with brown fur and lots of spots? It is also the 'species' of the new deer's. The name 'Spotted Deer' will be a new category in Wiki. And such a variety of deer will be everywhere in the world as well as in one country. This description of objects that exist regardless of space and time also remembers names based on their characteristics as we remember them again over time. This is said to have persistence, no change in intrinsic meaning, consistent and unified properties.
On the contrary, the unreliable part relates to historical facts, such as the traditions that have been going on so far, and what really happens in our society. Its common features are variability, one-off, ruleless and macro view.
There is the easy example, 'Dokdo'. Dokdo is the island that consistent with the property referred to in first paragraph. Therefore, this part of description is 'reliable things'. However, we have to pay attention to the 'category.' There are associated with 'human activity,' of many of the category of Dokdo. It's a 'territorial issue'. This part is still a territorial dispute with Japan. In this case, we don't know what will happen and we still have very different positions. In other words, the category territory implies 'the possibility of different views depending on people's opinions.' In this case, we have temporary properties in this area, and at the same time it is macro view and variable.
As such, Wikipedia cannot be unconditionally trusted or unreliable.
Wiki is a collection of information diversity. It is more important to know how to discern and judge information based on each individual's thoughts and subjectivity than to divide it into facts and lies. I'd like to call this 'individual reliability'.
First, the trusted part in Wikipedia's content is things(matters) like plants and animals, materials, and machines. They have consistent and unified properties, something that anyone can easily influence, and over time the intrinsic meaning does not change.
For example, there is a explanation about deer in Wiki. Simply, Wiki defines a large-eyed animal with horns, four-legged, bone, brown fur. But what if there was a new animal with brown fur and lots of spots? It is also the 'species' of the new deer's. The name 'Spotted Deer' will be a new category in Wiki. And such a variety of deer will be everywhere in the world as well as in one country. This description of objects that exist regardless of space and time also remembers names based on their characteristics as we remember them again over time. This is said to have persistence, no change in intrinsic meaning, consistent and unified properties.
On the contrary, the unreliable part relates to historical facts, such as the traditions that have been going on so far, and what really happens in our society. Its common features are variability, one-off, ruleless and macro view.
There is the easy example, 'Dokdo'. Dokdo is the island that consistent with the property referred to in first paragraph. Therefore, this part of description is 'reliable things'. However, we have to pay attention to the 'category.' There are associated with 'human activity,' of many of the category of Dokdo. It's a 'territorial issue'. This part is still a territorial dispute with Japan. In this case, we don't know what will happen and we still have very different positions. In other words, the category territory implies 'the possibility of different views depending on people's opinions.' In this case, we have temporary properties in this area, and at the same time it is macro view and variable.
As such, Wikipedia cannot be unconditionally trusted or unreliable.
Wiki is a collection of information diversity. It is more important to know how to discern and judge information based on each individual's thoughts and subjectivity than to divide it into facts and lies. I'd like to call this 'individual reliability'.
Comments
Post a Comment