Week8-reading watching blog-QU HONGYU 굴홍우

Summary:

Wikipedia's reliability and guidelines for citing sources. Wikipedia requires all content to be based on reliable, published sources and to cover both majority and significant minority views. The article details how to judge the reliability of sources, emphasizing the independence, fact checking, and accuracy of sources. Different types of sources (such as academic material, news organizations, editorial reviews, etc.) are also used differently in Wikipedia. The article also mentions that the reliability of the source depends on the context, and editors need to determine on a case-by-case basis whether the source is appropriate to support a statement. In addition, the article also deals with how to deal with outdated sources, news aggregation sites, commercial sources and other special cases.

Wikipedia's handling of references to biased or opinionated sources Wikipedia requires articles to be neutral, but reliable sources don't necessarily need to be neutral. Sometimes a biased source may be the best option to support a point of view. When using these sources, editors need to judge whether they meet the criteria of a reliable source, such as fact checking, editorial control, and independence. In addition, the article discusses the unreliability of dubious sources (e.g., extremist websites, self-published content) and user-generated content (e.g., social media, forums), and emphasizes that these sources are generally not appropriate to support controversial claims. In particular, the article mentions that AI-generated content (such as ChatGPT) is often unreliable because they can generate false information or "hallucinatory" content. Finally, the article also deals with the question of how to select reliable sources in specific situations (such as medical claims, fringe theories, citations and so on.


Interesting point:

The article mentions that AI-generated content  is often unreliable because they can generate false information or "hallucinatory" content. This phenomenon is increasingly common in the dissemination of information today, especially in the fields of journalism, academia and social media.


Discussion:

Do you think that with the advancement of AI technology, it is possible that we will find a way to effectively verify the reliability of AI-generated content in the future?


Comments

  1. CHEN SIYUApril 24, 2025 at 9:11 PM

    We may see platforms that blend AI speed with human oversight — for instance:

    AIs generate content
    Humans (or specialized models) verify or annotate it
    The result is logged, archived, and rated by reliability
    Think: "AI writes it, humans approve it" — like peer review for algorithms.

    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