week7--- Class Discussion Question 1----CUI ZAN

When you search for information, do you prefer to use AI or Wikipedia? Why？

When I need to look something up, I actually use both AI and Wikipedia, but I find myself using AI more often. The reason is simple—it’s just more convenient. I can type in a question and get a well-organized answer right away. Plus, I can ask it to rephrase things, give examples, or highlight the main points, which saves me from having to open multiple tabs and dig through tons of information on my own.

AI is especially helpful when I’m not familiar with a topic or just want to get a basic understanding quickly. For example, if I’m preparing for a class discussion or starting a group project, I might just want to know “what is this topic about?” In those cases, I usually go straight to AI instead of checking Wikipedia, because it’s faster and easier to grasp the main ideas.

But when it comes to writing papers or doing more formal work, I still rely on Wikipedia, especially when I need sources. Even though AI often gives decent answers, the details aren’t always accurate. I’ve had times where the dates or facts were wrong. So the more important the accuracy is, the more I’ll turn to Wikipedia—and sometimes I even check the original sources it links to.

So for me, it’s not really about choosing one over the other. It depends on the situation. If I want speed and a quick overview, I go with AI. If I need reliability and citations, I go with Wikipedia. These days, there’s so much information out there that I think the key is knowing which tool to use and how to use it effectively.

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