Week 10: Who defined "Reliable Sources"? The visible and invisible of knowledge------MUYE

1) Read the summary

The core question of this week is: On Wikipedia, what kind of content is considered "acceptable" knowledge? We have studied the "Reliable Source" policy, which emphasizes that the source must be a third party, a media or academic work with a publishing process. This standard aims to ensure the verifiability of entries and the accuracy of information. However, in practice, this policy may lead to the exclusivity of knowledge, especially when knowledge in certain fields does not have the support of "formal" publication, it is difficult for it to enter the public view of Wikipedia.


2) Interesting discoveries

A particularly notable phenomenon is that the knowledge of countries in the Global South or ethnic minority groups is often absent on Wikipedia. It's not that this knowledge doesn't exist, but that they have no citation sources that "conform to Wikipedia standards". For instance, many oral histories, community studies and local experiences are difficult to be accepted in both English and Chinese wikis. This made me realize that Wikipedia is open in form, but it is still subject to the global unequal publishing system in terms of the way knowledge is produced and reproduced.


3) Discussion perspective

If Wikipedia hopes to truly achieve knowledge sharing and decentralization, should the "reliable source" standard be differentiated? For instance, regarding local knowledge, is it possible to accept interviews with carefully reviewed local publications or experts under the premise of clear labeling? If no adjustments are made, will Wikipedia unintentionally reproduce the inequalities in the existing knowledge system?

Comments

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