week5--When do you think we can use Wikipedia as a source? --WU WENHAO

 WU WENHAO, 2021080464

Summary

Wikipedia is one of the most widely used information sources today, but its reliability is often questioned. While early skepticism was common, studies—like one by Nature in the 2000s—showed that Wikipedia’s scientific articles had a similar rate of serious errors compared to Encyclopedia Britannica. More recent research supports the idea that Wikipedia is generally as accurate as other encyclopedias. However, it's still a user-edited platform, which means articles can be vandalized, biased, or incomplete. To assess reliability, readers should check whether claims are cited, whether sources are credible, and whether there are editorial conflicts or warning tags in the article’s history or talk page.

Interesting Discovery

A surprising fact is that Wikipedia has a detailed article discussing its own reliability. This self-awareness reflects Wikipedia’s transparency and its recognition of its own limitations. However, this openness also reveals a core weakness: because anyone can edit pages, mistakes, bias, or even intentional misinformation can appear. For example, there have been cases where false information stayed online for years before being corrected. A famous incident involved a journalist named John Seigenthaler, who discovered that his Wikipedia biography falsely claimed he was involved in the assassination of President Kennedy. The false claim remained online for months before anyone noticed.

Another interesting aspect is how widely Wikipedia is trusted by the public despite these risks. Many students and even professionals turn to it first, forgetting to check the sources cited or to verify facts independently. This shows that popularity doesn't always mean reliability. Wikipedia is convenient and often informative, but without source-checking, it can be misleading. In short, it can be a powerful tool—if used critically.

Discussion Questions

Should Wikipedia editors be held to higher standards of transparency and accountability? Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, how do we ensure that contributors are acting in good faith and are qualified to make changes on certain topics? Would requiring real-name registration or editor credentials improve the platform, or would it compromise the open, collaborative spirit that defines Wikipedia? Moreover, how can Wikipedia strike a balance between openness and reliability—especially when dealing with controversial or politically sensitive subjects?



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Introduction to the blog

This blog is a digital forum where students from Collective Intelligence in Practice: Understanding Wikipedia at the Hanyang University in Korea (2025) will discuss their weekly readings and activities. Each week you are expected to post a blog post on our blog and make a comment on another student's post. You can do so on one of the following three topics: a) You can blog about the readings for the next week. As you are expected to do the assigned readings FOR the lectures they are assigned to, you are expected to post your blog and comments BEFORE that lecture. An ideal commentary should be about half a page in length (~200 words), divided into three clearly labeled sections in which you: 1) summarize in your own words of materials you read; 2) mention any new, interesting, or unusual items learned; 3) identify at least one question, concern, or discussion angle that is either problematic in some respect or could have been elaborated more. This question is likely to be incor...
Read more

Week 1. My Recent Wikipedia Edits - Jeong seolah (정설아)

I made several edits to the Wikipedia page for 'Daegu'.  Daegu, located in the southeastern part of South Korea, is the third-largest urban area in the country, following Seoul and Busan. With a population exceeding 2.3 million, it is the fourth-largest metropolitan city in South Korea and the second-largest in the Yeongnam region after Busan. Often referred to together with the surrounding North Gyeongsang Province as Daegu-Gyeongbuk, this region is home to over 5 million residents. Known for its rich history and vibrant economy, Daegu stands as a key player in South Korea's cultural and industrial landscape. Below is a summary of the changes I contributed. 1) Summarize and link Sights Section:  - Improved clarity by changing “mountains keep many traditional temples” to “the mountains keep many traditional temples.” Mosque Controversy Section:  - Simplified a sentence by removing “and of the authorities.” Festivals Section:  - Made phrasing smoother by changing “tho...
Read more

Week4 - Review about the readings for the next week. - Jo HyeonSeong (조현성)

 1. Summarize in my own words of materials. The book is primarily about the openness of Wikipedia. Openness means that anyone can participate in the creation and editing of articles without any qualifications. Openness can be a double-edged sword. While it means that you can edit without having expert knowledge of a topic, it also means that you can participate even if you have expert knowledge. For experts, articles written by non-experts can come across as inaccurate knowledge, which can anger experts. This anger can also be a catalyst for Wikipedia to continue to improve. However, articles edited only by non-experts can cause misunderstandings and convey incorrect information, so openness can be considered a double-edged sword. In fact, it sometimes causes some conflict, such as Wales' negative stance. Openness also means freedom from copyright, which means anyone can take it and use it anywhere. That is why the knowledge of non-experts can have greater impact. That is why appro...
Read more