W1-2. Wikipedia: Reliable sources - jeongbin lee

This document defines the concept of sources that influence information, and categorizes it into various types. Besides, it defines unreliable sources and shows us the instruction of appropriate sources in specific situations.

What was interesting to me was that many people indiscriminately accepted sources that appeared to be inappropriate in this document. I was one of those people. What I've been through with global warming is a good example. As I went through the curriculum and many articles and documentaries, I have recognized the seriousness of global warming. Then one day I came across several articles and documentaries claiming that global warming is an illusion. I was confused as I had a firm belief in global warming. Since then, I have given up my thoughts about global warming. But in the meantime, I discovered that an institute claiming that global warming is an illusion was funded by a multinational oil company. It would not be a problem for companies to finance academic development, but the problem was that global warming and oil companies are too closely related. Through this, I have found that information based on the unreliable source confuses people.

This is the question I want to share with you. Do you know the case that the use of the wrong source has created confusion like the above example? If you know, what can you share?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

WK 5.2 The Benevolent Dictator - Hanane Ben Abdeslam

In the reading it starts with the example of a “Neo-Nazi” dictator, it didn’t say when it exactly happened but I think it was during World War I and II. This dictator just did what he wanted to do, locking articles down, ban people, and protecting their own reputation and integrity. Actually, for someone to have that much power by a community founder is not unique to Wikipedia. Such leaders are often found in a project around, which a community develops, or otherwise emerge from a leaderless context by way of merit. However, Wikipedia is not an anarchy, democracy, nor a monarchy. Because of the voluntary and meritocratic character of open content communities it is not surprising that leaders are expected to lead by example as their very leadership is founded upon exemplary behavior. This means that leadership emerges through action rather than appointment. The prominent leader of an open content community is sometimes characterizing as a benevolent dictator. This is a variation on a t...
Read more

W2. What is Wikipedia - Seungju Lee

Summary Wikipedia is a multilingual online encyclopedia as an collaboration project. It isn't made by one people. Anyone can write and share information. It is maintained by non profit organizations. It is the largest and most popular  general reference work on the World Wide Web, and is one of the 20 most popular websites. Diverse information can be found in encyclopedia. Interesting point Wikipedia is made by group. All people in group can share their own information. Not only expert, but also anyone who have interest in topic, they can participate in make dictionary. I had a negative opinion about this in past, because this can affect on accuracy of information. But, after I realized that  this is "collaboration" project, many people can give a feedback to writers who post wrong information. So I could change my mind that that kind of feedback make good circulation on advance of wikipedia. And also it is collaboration project,  so I think variety of informat...
Read more

W2. What is Wikipedia? / Juhee Cha

After reading http://reagle.org/joseph/2010/gfc/foreward.html http://reagle.org/joseph/2010/gfc/preface-web.html http://reagle.org/joseph/2010/gfc/preface.html *Summary Wikipedia is a collaborative community that can freely and voluntarily make changes to the world. empower people to a wide The people who share knowledge here are not for the sake of money but for the people who love knowledge sharing itself. The data that you normally seek for knowledge is limited. These materials are difficult to produce and logically technical. But Wikipedia makes those processes simple. Wikipedia goes through the process of discussing drafts, sending comments, pointing out what is missing, and presenting ideas. *Interesting Point There was also definitely a negative perception of the Internet dictionary before taking the class. The biggest reason for this was that the public, not the 'experts', could modify it. But rather, after learning about Wikipedia's principles, I changed m...
Read more