Week7---Class discussion questions---ZHANG XIAOTONG(장효동)

 In class this week, we discussed the question: When you search for information, do you prefer to use AI or Wikipedia?

In an era of increasingly advanced digital information, the way we acquire knowledge has changed greatly. We used to rely on libraries, textbooks, and academic journals to acquire knowledge, but now we can quickly get answers through artificial intelligence (AI) or Wikipedia by simply searching on the website. But regarding the question "Which one would you rather use AI or Wikipedia for information search?" I prefer to use AI to search for information first, and then use Wikipedia to verify when I need to verify, quote, or understand objective knowledge.

When using AI tools like ChatGPT, I can ask vague questions or even just express a general idea, and AI can understand the context and give structured and targeted answers. It can organize language according to my level of understanding, such as explaining complex terms in popular language or providing learning suggestions. This personalized feedback greatly improves the efficiency of information digestion and is very convenient for me to use.

But in fact, in some special cases, I still use Wikipedia to verify the information provided by AI, especially when I need a reliable source, citation material or check historical development. Wikipedia is more comprehensive and authoritative than AI.

In short, AI provides a flexible, efficient and conversational search method, while Wikipedia is still an authoritative and verifiable treasure trove of information. Both are very helpful for me to acquire knowledge.

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