Week 8 | Reliability of Wikipedia | Lee Jaeseong


1. Summary
The reliability of Wikipedia has always been questioned and evaluated frequently. Because Wikipedia is open to joint editing, it tests how quickly evaluating its credibility removes false or misleading information.
Wikipedia is measured by various criteria such as "the accuracy of information provided within the article" and "the appropriateness of the style and focus of the article." In 2005, experts in each field scored between 1 and 10 points while reviewing seven items related to them, mostly between 5 and 8. While criticizing inaccuracies and placing emphasis on less important areas, they praised the sound and correct.
In addition, many experts and the media talked about the credibility of Wikipedia until 2019. Especially in science and medicine. It turned out to be unexpectedly reliable.
Wikipedia is quite reliable, but it still reveals its vulnerability to prejudice.

2. Interesting Point
If Wikipedia's reliability score is approximately 5 to 8, it is quite reliable. Of course, it is not enough to refer to when we write a paper or write an important book. However, it is quite amazing that Wikipedia, which can be used by ordinary people, has such a high level of credibility.

3. Discussion
Do you think there will be a day when Wikipedia will be so reliable that it can be used in its thesis someday?

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