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?
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