Wikipedia: reliable sources / Kim Ami


-      Summary
This article explains that Wikipedia is a reliable source. Articles recorded in Wikipedia should be based on published sources and recorded to include all the majority or minority opinions expressed in such sources. Articles should be able to prove to others based on three reliable public sources, such as the work itself, the author and the publisher of the work. These Wikipedia articles use materials that can give credibility, such as academic material, news media news reporting. By the way, Wikipedia should present us with a neutral perspective, but there is no need for reliable sources to be neutral, unbiased or objective. Rather, sources that do not have a neutral perspective can support information about various perspectives on the subject. In addition to reliable sources, the use of suspicious or self-released sources is very limited and may not normally be acceptable. However, if the claim of the data is not an exceptional claim, or if there is no reasonable doubt about its authenticity, and if this article is not based primarily on these sources, the suspicious source can be used for Wikipedia articles.

-      Interesting point
  Interesting point was that Wikipedia said in this article that it should present a neutral perspective, but noted that non-objective sources can provide information on various perspectives on the subject. I first read this part and thought it was contradictory. In other words, I thought Wikipedia should provide an objective source to present a neutral perspective. However, because bias appears in politics, religion, finance, and belief, in certain situations, it may be reliable in the context. So I understood that if the source has independence from the subject, and is possible to confirm the facts, the text can be made.

-      Discussion
  Reading this article, I learned that Wikipedia is trying to provide neutral, reliable information. But people around me think Wikipedia is unreliable information. Why is that? So what are the ways to improve Wikipedia's reliability?

Comments

  1. In korea, this project, 'the online dictionary that everyone can participate in write article' is not familiar. similar project is managed like namuwiki, but namuwiki project doen't have policy like to wikipedia's policy that have to provided neutral, reliable information. so korean consider that these online project are non-reliable contents. for korean have trust to this project, we have to notify these project have specific policy.

    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