Week8 -- My Wikipedia Edits -- GUAN YUE

 1. Summary

This week, I mainly worked on two Wikipedia articles: Lap Cheong (臘腸) and Maxim's Bakery (美心西餅). While working on a translation task, I noticed that both articles had some missing citations or incorrect links. So I added a few missing references and deleted some broken or misdirected links. Even though these edits were relatively minor, I felt that they were still very meaningful—small fixes like these help make the articles more complete and reliable, and also make it easier for readers to find original sources when they need them.

2. Interesting Items

One thing that stood out to me during this editing process was how even an article that looks well-written on the surface can still have hidden problems underneath. Especially when it comes to citations: some links might appear fine at first glance, but when you actually click on them, they turn out to be dead or lead to unrelated content. In some cases, sources were added without careful cross-checking, and didn’t fully match the text they were supposed to support. Fixing these issues wasn’t as simple as it seemed—I had to search for reliable references, double-check them against the original content, and make sure the replacements were both accurate and appropriate for Wikipedia standards.
This experience made me realize that editing Wikipedia isn’t just about adding more information—it’s about making sure every part of the article is solid, trustworthy, and verifiable.

Another thing I found interesting was how many problems in older articles come from the natural aging of online content. A link that worked perfectly a few years ago might now be broken, or a once-reliable piece of information might have been updated or revised. It made me realize that maintaining Wikipedia is an ongoing process. It’s not something you can just finish once; it needs constant updates and careful checking over time.

3. Question or Critique

This experience also made me think about an important issue: when we find that a citation in the original article has expired or disappeared, should we focus more on trying to preserve the original intent of the source, or should we prioritize updating the article with a newer, more reliable reference?
Sometimes, it’s possible to find a similar but not identical source, and even small differences might change the nuance of the original text. Especially when working across different languages, these subtle shifts can easily happen. I realized that making the right call in these situations requires a lot of careful judgment.

Comments

  1. CHEN SIWENApril 26, 2025 at 4:13 AM

    When a citation expires, the priority is to preserve the original intent. If an archived version exists, use it; if not, a replacement must closely match the original content, or the article must be adjusted to fit the new source. Be especially cautious of subtle differences across languages. Overall, accuracy is more important than simply updating references.

    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

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