week5. Can we trust Wikipedia?Zhang Peiyao

As we all know, Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia. It is different from the encyclopedia we usually know. The encyclopedia is written by experts and scholars in related fields, and is edited and processed by specialized editors. It is finalized and published, and its academic and authoritative Wide recognition and recognition. Wikipedia, as an emerging, open online resource, allows anyone to create entries and articles. Most of the writers are interested in related issues, of course, there are also experts and scholars. However, because it can be rewritten by people at any time, Wikipedia's terms and articles are theoretically constantly changing, modifying, modified, and re-editing. Therefore, its accuracy is greatly reduced, and people naturally doubt its academic and authoritative nature. In my opinion, Wikipedia can be cited as an academic resource and can be widely used in academic research and academic writing. This is only a matter of time. In terms of the humanities and social sciences that I am familiar with, in the future, more and more scholars will definitely use Wikipedia as an important source of literature. The reasons are as follows. First, the reliability of Wikipedia is gradually increasing. Second, Wikipedia's credibility has gradually expanded. Third, the academic community can no longer turn a blind eye to open network resources. It is particularly important to emphasize that the understanding of Wikipedia should not remain in a state of exclusion, especially for academic newcomers, including for college students, to educate them on how to use them correctly in academic research and writing. This ability to be called "new media literacy" by some Western scholars should be part of our academic normative education.

Comments

  1. 이예원 (yewon Lee)April 4, 2019 at 4:40 AM

    I agree that. I think the important thing is the editor's acting. They are changing, modifying, modified, and re-editing. it is up to them. they can make better in the wiki.

    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