week8: read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources --LAOXINYI

 1）Summary

Wikipedia seems to be "anyone can modify", but in fact, its requirements for citing sources are stricter than those for writing academic papers.

It has a set of guidelines on "what is a reliable source", referred to as WP:RS. After reading it, I realized that Wikipedia will not simply say that a source is "always reliable" or "always unreliable", but look at the context. It prefers second-hand information (such as academic reviews, news analysis) rather than original data. Blogs, Weibo, forums, and even AI-written things cannot be cited - because they lack independence and review mechanisms. For biographies, medical information and emergencies, the requirements are particularly high, and there is even a rule that "once discovered, they must be deleted immediately."

In a word: "Open" does not mean "casual".

2）Interesting Point

What shocked me the most was that Wikipedia clearly stated that "AI-generated content cannot be cited", such as ChatGPT.

The reason is also very direct: AI is prone to "nonsense" + no one is responsible + unverifiable.

It even lists typical problems of AI, such as fabricating non-existent citations, confusing facts, lack of sources, etc. This is actually very ironic - a platform that was frightened by "AI writing papers" all over the world took the lead in standing out and drawing a clear line: AI can be used to help you think, but it cannot help you "create the truth".

After reading this, I admire Wikipedia's cautious attitude even more.

3）Discussion

Many people think that Wikipedia is an unreliable encyclopedia that can be modified by anyone. Do you think the "information threshold" is higher than that of traditional media?

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