Wikipedia: Reliable sources/ Changyu Jung

"Wikipedia" is certainly one of the best ways to get an information for a specific topic. There are so many articles about numerous topics because anyone can write and edit it. But because of that reason, there must be issues about reliability of articles in Wikipedia. So people should mention "reliable sources" about the article when writing it. And I think it's a good system.

What is interesting is that information from news isn't regarded as something reliable in Wikipedia. Because information from news may not reflect the facts as it is. News agencies nowadays are losing their reputations in a massive competition. Fake news is flooding everywhere now, so news is not "a reliable source" today.

In a situation like this(fake news and fake information in everywhere), how can we choose what to believe and what to listen? I wonder what is a standard for "reliable information" today.

Comments

  1. The criteria for judging "trusted information" vary from person to person.
    I look for other data similar to that data to determine if it is reliable. Or search for information that is contrary to that information. And if the source of information is reliable, it is likely to be real information.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Your question is very difficult, but I think it's a subject we should think about at least once these days. Because the press is making or spreading fake news. So I think it is important to compare it with other information to get reliable information. For example, find out if the news A was only reported in the media A or in other media. Or I think it's a good idea to find out how different the press have reported on the news of B.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

W4. Millennium Development Goals / Lee Se Hyun

What is meant by that? / Lee hayoung

W10. Human_rights / Lee Se Hyun