W1-2. Wikipedia: Reliable sources / Lee Se Hyun (LATE POSTING - ADDED)

Summary

Wikipedia values the reliability of the source of information. Articles should be written through sources famous for factual confirmation and accuracy. They say that it should be the opinion of a group of experts, not the ones that non-experts read and interpret the data.
Examples include authoritative scholars and publicly known media. Trusted sources are divided according to their field; in science and academia, new information is revealed or replaced by new theories, so old information is less reliable. Breaking news, discovery that requires verification of new information, is also unreliable information. Secondary information should be used to increase the reliability of this information. Examples include papers, review articles, monographs, or textbooks that review existing studies. This is because it is a proven fact about information. However, Wikipedia does not only allow objective information. Subjective information is extremely avoided, but some are permitted. Types like bestsellers, streaming music rankings are acceptable. Wikipedia values ​​a neutral perspective. In the case of information that enters the perspective, it is based on the thoughts of most people. If the information contains a few thoughts, it must be stated that it is part of the idea.

Opinion

There are also blacklists from Wikipedia that should not be used. Reading this book, I could see if Wikipedia was trying to provide neutral opinions and reliable information. I knew how much they were setting, supplementing and guiding policies to complement unreliable sources cited as their shortcomings. Unexpectedly, Wikipedia has the advantage of fast information modification, and it was interesting to avoid real-time updates such as breaking news.

Question

1. Objective information, such as science, is expected to have no problem in providing information because people's thoughts are not much different. However, information such as politics and society is information that people's values are bound to enter. In the process of providing information, there will inevitably be a disagreement among authors with different values. In this case, Wikipedia does not intervene, but instead leads to discussions among the authors to produce agreements. Wouldn't Wikipedia intervene if people with multiple biased information ignored neutral people?
2. Instead of adopting an authoritative group of experts, they are leaving information to non-experts. I think Wikipedia's advantage to be 'one information diverse perspective'. While providing information from a neutral point of view is important, what about providing information focused on diversity? I want to ask what my classmates think.

Comments

  1. AnonymousApril 5, 2020 at 2:56 AM

    1. If people with multiple biased information would ignore neutral people and try to keep vandalism as their stance, I think the Wikipedia would lock the article and undo the changes made to the point where there was the least amount of un-neutral things. After all, doing things like that is violating the pillars of Wikipedia. But maybe they won't change anything to be neutral, rather, they would just stop the fight, and give people time to cool down. I'm not so sure if we could call this an intervention.

    2. Since Wikipedia is open to all the people, like what you said, Wikipedia's articles can possible gain neutral point of view. And by 'everyone', it means the experts can also participate if they want to. Furthermore, even the people with the most minor interest can right what they know about. So, diversity is important, and I think there's no need to be worried about it.

    ReplyDelete

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