W8. Reliability of Wikipedia and Reliable sources / Lee Se Hyun

Summary

Wikipedia constantly raises questions about reliability. Several studies have secured Wikipedia's overall reliability, but the question of reliability still exists. This problem stems from the characteristics of Wikipedia. Wikipedia will be co-edited for non-professionals to participate. It is highly likely that unreliable information will be provided for the general public, not experts, to become information producers. Therefore, this is why Wikipedia raises reliability issues even though it has an amazing ability to modify information compared to other encyclopedias.
Wikipedia encourages the use of reliable sources to enhance the reliability of information It defines and specifies reliable sources. Ignoring Wikipedia's kind explanation, information that deviates from Wikipedia's policy may result in a penalty of blacklist registration.
Wikipedia is doing its best to the extent that they can work. However, it is inevitable that Wikipedia is less reliable than traditional encyclopedias due to its nature. Wikipedia's reliability is 80 percent, while other encyclopedias claim to have 95 to 96 percent reliability, according to a study conducted in 2008. Also, academics do not use Wikipedia's information because they think it is an unreliable source. This shows the chronic problem of Wikipedia.

Interesting point

We could see the problem caused by Wikipedia's personality. What was interesting to me was that Wikipedia is more reliable than I expected. "We expected 70 percent reliability, but it was interesting to see 80 percent," said Wikipedia, adding, "As of 2008, there is no way to increase the reliability of information." It is impossible for them to control information through a powerful Leviathan. It doesn't fit the political landscape and can't control the large amount of information registered with Wikipedia. Therefore, we have no choice but to trust Wikipedia people in order to increase credibility. They should be encouraged to use neutral and correct sources. How about benchmarking Linux? Linux is divided into people receiving money and volunteers. The main motivation of a person who serves is to be recognized by people. What if Wikipedia uses these people's psychology to increase the reliability of information?

Question

What kind of bashup is there for Wikipedia to increase the reliability of information as much as other encyclopedias?

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