Week8----Artificial Intelligence or Wikipedia?--HE ZIXUAN

 1. Abstract

In this era of information explosion, the way to acquire knowledge is also evolving. Wikipedia used to be the first choice for many people, but now artificial intelligence is gradually becoming the new favorite. This article will explore the advantages and disadvantages of artificial intelligence and Wikipedia when searching for information, and why we tend to prefer one over the other.


2. Interesting points

Wikipedia is like the thick book of knowledge on your bookshelf, with accurate search and detailed content, but you have to "turn the pages" to understand it yourself. Artificial intelligence is more like a knowledgeable and tireless friend sitting at your table, ready to talk at any time, and even help you give examples, translate, summarize, and extend the discussion.

For example:

You ask: "How are black holes formed?"

Wikipedia will directly enter the mode: definition, history, scientific background, formula, related people... solid information.

Artificial intelligence answers: "Black holes can be understood as celestial bodies of the 'foodie level' in the universe. Its gravity is so strong that even light cannot escape... Do you want me to give you an analogy?" - It's a bit like a teacher + joke teller + translator in one.


3.Discussion

Do we want "facts" or "convenience"?

Do we want "facts" or "convenience"? Although Wikipedia is calm, it has clear source citations, editing history and content review mechanisms, and tends to be objective; although artificial intelligence is smart, it is often based on "language model reasoning" rather than "factual judgment."

More importantly, the "correctness" of AI answers actually depends on training data and algorithm judgment, rather than authoritative citations. Although Wikipedia is not perfect, there is a set of "co-construction and co-management" mechanisms behind it to constrain content quality.

Comments

  1. YAN JINJINApril 25, 2025 at 1:08 AM

    This blog makes a good comparison between the advantages and disadvantages of artificial intelligence and Wikipedia in terms of information acquisition. The article clearly illustrates the convenience and interactivity of artificial intelligence and the accuracy and reliability of Wikipedia. In particular, through a vivid metaphor, artificial intelligence is compared to a "knowledgeable friend", showing its advantages of instant answers and diverse functions. However, the article also reminds readers that the correctness of artificial intelligence answers depends on data and algorithms, while Wikipedia has a more stringent editing mechanism, which is worth readers' attention. Overall, the discussion in this article is in-depth and can trigger people's reflection on the advantages and disadvantages of different information sources.

    ReplyDelete
  2. CHEN SIWENApril 26, 2025 at 4:18 AM

    The issue of "facts" versus "convenience" is evident in Wikipedia and AI. Wikipedia focuses on facts, ensuring content quality through source citations and collaborative mechanisms, while AI prioritizes convenience, generating answers based on language model reasoning and relying on training data and algorithms rather than authoritative sources. Wikipedia emphasizes accuracy, while AI focuses on providing quick answers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 권현지April 26, 2025 at 9:17 AM

    I think we want facts. That's why we should be careful in using AI. Fact-checking is essential because AI's answers are less accurate at the moment. We have to constantly check facts and pay attention.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lee JaehyunApril 27, 2025 at 4:49 AM

    I agree with your perspective.
    Wikipedia, despite its imperfections, provides a transparent system of source citations, editing histories, and content reviews, which help maintain a reasonable level of objectivity and reliability. In contrast, while AI models are incredibly convenient and capable, their responses often rely on language patterns and statistical reasoning rather than verified facts. As pointed out, the correctness of AI outputs depends heavily on the quality of training data and algorithmic decisions, not on authoritative references.
    Therefore, I believe that Wikipedia’s community-driven, co-managed structure offers a more accountable and verifiable framework for information compared to AI-generated answers. In a world increasingly dominated by speed and convenience, valuing systems that prioritize factual accuracy and collective responsibility remains essential.

    ReplyDelete

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

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

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