W8. Reliability of Wikipedia and Reliable sources - Youngryun, Chun

1. Summary


The Reliability of Wikipedia has often been questioned. It is important to review reliability because Wikipedia is anonymously or jointly edited. Therefore, there is a negative assessment that Wikipedia has missing, inaccurate information is unbalanced. However, there is also a positive assessment that there is no apparent inaccuracy and that there is a lot of reliable and quickly accessible information.
Wikipedia has the potential to spread to other websites even if incorrect information is deleted. Thus, Wikipedia tries to quickly delete false information and maintain neutrality. In addition, Wikipedia is used as a source in other contexts and as a tool to test the credibility of a wide range of opinion articles.

This article talks about the sources Wikipedia uses. First of all, context and age should be considered when determining the reliability of the source. This is because reliability and accuracy can vary through context and duration. And it explains the types of sources. Something like a news organization or academic journal. Next, sources of refraining from using were presented. User-generated content produced with the help of interest groups or posted on SNS is not appropriate.
It also explains how to determine the reliability of the source by type. First, content such as medical claims, academic consensus and the use of other sources should ensure accuracy, reputation and evidence. In addition, the use of sources containing opinions should be reduced. And when using quotations, we need to leave the source of the text. Finally, original research should be used carefully. Therefore, secondary research is preferred because it is more verifiable than primary research.

2. What interesting

I learned a lot from editing Wikipedia by myself and re-reading the article about the reliability of the source. It was not easy to find reliable sources while editing Wikipedia. Once again, I think we should think about the accuracy of the source as we recall this article. There is a need to be wary because unreliable sources are more accessible. I should try to find materials in papers or books rather than Internet articles.

3. Discussion

I wonder how Wikipedia keeps its Reliability. Also, I want to learn how to do it properly when quoting the contents of a paper or book.

Comments

  1. Juhee ChaMay 10, 2020 at 1:08 AM

    Wikipedia is said to be evaluating the reliability of the cited material through the following guidelines.
    1. Accuracy of the information provided in the article 2. Adequacy of the image provided with the article 3. Appropriateness of the style and focus of the article 4. Sensitivity to the false information 5. inclusiveness, scope and scope 6. Identifying famous third-party sources in the range of articles and articles 7. Verifiability of statements by sources 8. Sensitivity and bias of editing 10. Wikipedia measures and reviews people's editing credibility and quickly filters out false information.
    I think it will be a good source if you follow the above guidelines well.

    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