Wikipedia : Reliable sources
Summary
Wikipedia values the reliability of the source of information. Articles should be written through sources famous for factual confirmation and accuracy. They say that it should be the opinion of a group of experts, not the ones that non-experts read and interpret the data.Examples include authoritative scholars and publicly known media. Trusted sources are divided according to their field; in science and academia, new information is revealed or replaced by new theories, so old information is less reliable. Breaking news, discovery that requires verification of new information, is also unreliable information. Secondary information should be used to increase the reliability of this information. Examples include papers, review articles, monographs, or textbooks that review existing studies. This is because it is a proven fact about information. However, Wikipedia does not only allow objective information. Subjective information is extremely avoided, but some are permitted. Types like bestsellers, streaming music rankings are acceptable. Wikipedia values a neutral perspective. In the case of information that enters the perspective, it is based on the thoughts of most people. If the information contains a few thoughts, it must be stated that it is part of the idea.
Opinion
There are also blacklists from Wikipedia that should not be used. Reading this book, I could see if Wikipedia was trying to provide neutral opinions and reliable information. I knew how much they were setting, supplementing and guiding policies to complement unreliable sources cited as their shortcomings. Unexpectedly, Wikipedia has the advantage of fast information modification, and it was interesting to avoid real-time updates such as breaking news.Question
1. Objective information, such as science, is expected to have no problem in providing information because people's thoughts are not much different. However, information such as politics and society is information that people's values are bound to enter. In the process of providing information, there will inevitably be a disagreement among authors with different values. In this case, Wikipedia does not intervene, but instead leads to discussions among the authors to produce agreements. Wouldn't Wikipedia intervene if people with multiple biased information ignored neutral people?
2. Instead of adopting an authoritative group of experts, they are leaving information to non-experts. I think Wikipedia's advantage to be 'one information diverse perspective'. While providing information from a neutral point of view is important, what about providing information focused on diversity? I want to ask what my classmates think.
Comments
Post a Comment