Week8 Wikipedia Edit-YUJIE 여결

Summary

Wikipedia strictly prohibits original research and ensures that article content is based on published and reliable sources, rather than the editor's personal conclusions or opinions. This approach is primarily reflected in the clear distinction between "first, second, and third-hand sources." Wikipedia advocates using second-hand sources as the primary basis, allows for limited use of third-hand sources, and is extremely cautious about their use, emphasizing the prohibition of unpublished analysis or interpretation. Furthermore, any new conclusions drawn from piecing together multiple sources are considered "original summaries," even if these sources themselves are reliable, and cannot include views compiled by the editor in the entries.

In terms of translation and data computation, Wikipedia also requires strict adherence to existing standards. For foreign proper nouns, priority should be given to using translations that already exist from reliable sources, and arbitrary romanization or free translation is prohibited unless there is clear consensus supporting the translation. At the same time, only simple and verifiable daily calculations, such as unit conversions and age calculations, are permitted based on a single source of information. Overall, these norms not only ensure the verifiability of entries but also uphold Wikipedia's credibility and academic value as a neutral and open encyclopedia.


Interesting points

Wikipedia's editing rules apply not only to textual content but also to multiple fields including translation, computation, and images. For example, when translating foreign proper nouns, Wikipedia requires editors to follow existing translation guidelines rather than creating new translations themselves, making Wikipedia to some extent a guardian of language standards. Moreover, while Wikipedia allows for simple daily calculations, it does not accept data results derived from multiple sources, which effectively serves as a reminder for editors to avoid overly complex or unnecessary reasoning. These details reflect how Wikipedia maintains the accuracy and reliability of information while also ensuring its openness and neutrality.


Discussion

Wikipedia strictly requires all content to be based on published reliable sources, which avoids the emergence of original research but also limits editors' creative expression in certain areas. A fascinating question is how to encourage editors to propose novel ideas or innovative contributions without violating this principle? Especially when translating and integrating multiple sources, how can we balance normativity with creativity so that Wikipedia's content maintains high standards of accuracy while introducing new thinking and diverse perspectives? Can we allow for a certain degree of creative expression while ensuring the content is rigorous, providing editors with more space to promote diversity and richness?

Comments

  1. CHEN SIWENApril 26, 2025 at 4:15 AM

    Innovation on Wikipedia should focus on selection, integration, and expression, not on creating new ideas. Editors can demonstrate creativity by translating, comparing authoritative sources, and synthesizing information, but must clearly attribute viewpoints and avoid original research or unwarranted conclusions.

    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