Week8-WU JIACHEN

Summary:

 This article outlines Wikipedia's standards for evaluating the reliability of sources used in its entries. According to Wikipedia’s guidelines, all content must be based on published, trustworthy sources and should represent the majority viewpoint while also including significant minority perspectives when appropriate. The article explains how to assess the credibility of a source, focusing on key criteria such as editorial oversight, fact-checking, and independence from the topic being discussed.

It also highlights that different types of sources—such as academic publications, news media, and opinion pieces—have different roles and levels of appropriateness depending on the context. Editors are encouraged to make case-by-case judgments rather than applying blanket rules. Additionally, the article discusses how to handle sources that may be outdated, commercial in nature, or come from news aggregators.

When it comes to biased or opinionated sources, Wikipedia’s policy requires that the overall article remain neutral, but the sources themselves do not necessarily have to be. In fact, sources with a particular viewpoint may still be useful, provided they meet the standards of reliability. The article also warns against using questionable materials such as fringe websites, self-published content, or user-generated platforms like social media. Notably, content generated by artificial intelligence (e.g., ChatGPT) is considered unreliable at this time, as it may include fabricated or unverifiable information.

The article concludes by emphasizing that in sensitive topics—such as medical claims or fringe theories—editors must be especially cautious and selective in choosing high-quality, reputable sources.

Interesting Point:

One particularly interesting point is the mention of AI-generated content being generally considered unreliable due to its tendency to produce “hallucinated” or made-up information. This issue is becoming increasingly relevant in the digital age, where AI tools are widely used in journalism, academic writing, and social media content creation.

Discussion Question:

As artificial intelligence technology continues to evolve, do you think it will eventually be possible to develop reliable verification systems that can assess and validate AI-generated content, making it suitable for use in academic or reference platforms like Wikipedia?

Comments

  1. YU JIEMay 1, 2025 at 11:33 PM

    With the advancement of artificial intelligence technology, reliable systems for verifying AI-generated content may emerge in the future. By combining machine learning with expert review, these systems ensure that the generated content is accurate and meets academic requirements. Despite this, potential biases and errors still need to be addressed to ensure the quality and credibility of AI content.

    ReplyDelete
  2. ljhwaMay 2, 2025 at 7:33 AM

    The most fundamental function of AI is to learn from human information. This ultimately means that AI cannot escape human bias. Metaphors or implicit criticisms, even if not expressed directly, can easily be replaced with other forms of expression, many of which may not have been previously learned by AI. As a result, new expressions that AI has not been trained on will continue to emerge. Therefore, I believe that AI is not well-suited to serve as a complete "administrator" for evaluating or verifying AI-generated content.

    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