Week5 - KIM JUHEE (김주희) : Reading
Summary
This article explains the controversies surrounding references in Wikipedia, particularly regarding the level of standardization for references and the reasons behind those standards. The article highlights how references are critical in maintaining the reliability and credibility of Wikipedia articles. It also draws attention to the importance of avoiding extremes, such as dividing opinions into conservative or liberal extremes. The article discusses criticisms of Wikipedia and Web 2.0, the challenges of collaborative editing, concerns about access and authority, and various opinions expressed by critics. These points are presented with examples of two authors who illustrate the range of views about how references should be handled.
Interesting Points
I found it interesting that the standards for references can vary from person to person, and this leads to ongoing debates. Because of this, the constant arguments and discussions about references seemed inevitable. I was especially surprised by the fact that there are people who focus too much on the number of edits they have made. I thought that it would be better if they could find satisfaction in more realistic, hobby-like activities. This made me reflect on the purpose of Wikipedia itself and how people should not lose sight of that, avoiding actions motivated by self-satisfaction or personal gain.
Questions and Discussion Points
What exactly is the "standard" for references? I believe that blogs, since anyone can write them, often contain inaccurate information. So, can blogs be used as references? If the blog is written by a well-known expert in the relevant field, can it be considered a valid source for citation? These are some of the questions I have about how references are treated in Wikipedia and how far one can go in accepting non-traditional sources as valid.
This article explains the controversies surrounding references in Wikipedia, particularly regarding the level of standardization for references and the reasons behind those standards. The article highlights how references are critical in maintaining the reliability and credibility of Wikipedia articles. It also draws attention to the importance of avoiding extremes, such as dividing opinions into conservative or liberal extremes. The article discusses criticisms of Wikipedia and Web 2.0, the challenges of collaborative editing, concerns about access and authority, and various opinions expressed by critics. These points are presented with examples of two authors who illustrate the range of views about how references should be handled.
Interesting Points
I found it interesting that the standards for references can vary from person to person, and this leads to ongoing debates. Because of this, the constant arguments and discussions about references seemed inevitable. I was especially surprised by the fact that there are people who focus too much on the number of edits they have made. I thought that it would be better if they could find satisfaction in more realistic, hobby-like activities. This made me reflect on the purpose of Wikipedia itself and how people should not lose sight of that, avoiding actions motivated by self-satisfaction or personal gain.
Questions and Discussion Points
What exactly is the "standard" for references? I believe that blogs, since anyone can write them, often contain inaccurate information. So, can blogs be used as references? If the blog is written by a well-known expert in the relevant field, can it be considered a valid source for citation? These are some of the questions I have about how references are treated in Wikipedia and how far one can go in accepting non-traditional sources as valid.
Comments
Post a Comment