W8) Reliability of Wikipedia & reliable sources - Hyojung Park

-Summary
 Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources. Also, all opinions on the subject should be dealt with in a neutral manner. Wikipedia evaluates reliable sources with its own strict criteria. It considers not only the sources , but also the specific context. For example, more attention should be paid to writing biographical documents about living people. Articles whose source does not meet Wikipedia's criteria are deleted.

So is Wikipedia reliable? There have been several studies about this, but generally not considered completely reliable. People think that the sources used in Wikipedia are reliable rather than Wikipedia itself. So they usually don't use Wikipedia as any academic material, but as a starting point for research.

-Interesting point
Wikipedia was using more factors than I thought as a criterion for evaluating reliable sources. It was interesting that there was a 'context' among that factors. It was also interesting that the reliability of Wikipedia, which people evaluate, depends on the sources used for it rather than on Wikipedia itself. Now that I think of it, the accurate source does not seem to prove that the document itself is reliable. Because Wikipedia is a place where edited by a number of anonymous users, not experts.

-Discussion
Do you think Wikipedia has reasonable criteria for evaluating reliable sources?

Comments

  1. Woojin JeongMay 12, 2020 at 12:49 AM

    I think they have reasonable criteria for source. Because they say that sources such as articles and books are available and proven sources are available.

    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