Table of Contents 64q43
"Source: Wikipedia“. These words often do not arouse much confidence. The quarantine has transformed many things and, one of them, is the way that students, whether from elementary school to university, look for reference information. With this autonomy to search for sources, pedagogues question themselves: would the Wikipedia a trusted platform? 2r5sm
The answer, surprisingly enough, is positive. After years of enjoying a legitimate bad reputation, the company's commitment Wikipedia for the current generation is transparency. It even seems like a response to current times, after all, the large-scale dissemination of fake news made the company review its guidelines.
The initiative is significant in that literally anyone with an internet connection can edit an entry. If, on the one hand, it is easy to publish a lie, on the other hand, it can be corrected by any of its millions of internet s in an instant. But this organic effort may have its days numbered.
After all, in a report on AAAI conference, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the MIT, claim that the application of AI can reduce the number of misinformation incidents, as a system with the technology can help identify and correct parts of text that need to be updated.
Understanding how the platform works can greatly simplify your experience as a whole. For that reason, the showmetech proposed to make a guide to solve any doubts along the way. The idea here is to really understand the whole process of building Wikipedia.
Discovering Wikipedia 1h444a
Understand the Wikipedia and its importance for the online environment is to measure its impact on the world. The platform is today, perhaps, the largest and most complete collaborative encyclopedia in the world. Its English version, considered the most complete, has more than 5 million entries. For Brazilian Portuguese, the numbers are more modest: 930 thousand entries. Wikipedia is available for constant updates in over 300 languages.
To browse Wikipedia, it is enough to think of it as a large online community, which allows any to create an anonymous , capable of editing or adding information to an entry. Accessing the entries is even simpler, after all, it only takes a few clicks to check some information on the platform.
It is worth ing that the site's guidelines are very specific, and they recommend, in a very clear way, maintaining neutrality in the production of texts for the entries, in addition to the commitment to the veracity of the facts. Something that, in practice, often proves the opposite.
The veracity of its facts is questionable precisely because the texts present in Wikipedia can be easily changed. What makes Wikipedia a great asset for students is precisely because it is the largest source of information on the entire internet, with more than 40 million articles on any and all subjects. From your favorite celebrity to academic topics, Wikipedia accumulates far more information than any traditional encyclopedia.
In other words, what makes Wikipedia interesting for students lies precisely in its trump card in becoming the first choice for research. In case you are not familiar with a certain subject, the great first step to actually start a research, maybe it is a brief consultation of this online encyclopedia, in order to find out, even if in a superficial way, what you are looking for as information.
a collective effort 6d5k4p
What makes Wikipedia's reputation as an encyclopedia questionable is perhaps that, at its launch in 2001, the site's more flexible guidelines did in fact allow any and all s to be able to create and edit an entry without any limitations. This is no longer a reality.
What makes Wikipedia's work grow considerably over the years is precisely the creation of a group of volunteer editors around the world, committed to disseminating the correct information. Your hard work helps keep the Wikipedia environment organized and, quite possibly, trustworthy.
After all, the Wikimedia Foundation (as they are better known) created very strict guidelines, as well as collaborative control mechanisms and constant checking of this material. The commitment is such that it extends to debates in internal forums. It is worth ing that, when checking the end of each Wikipedia entry, there is a detailed bibliography that brings direct sources, such as books or academic papers published in newspapers and scientific journals. News links from traditional websites can also serve as a bibliographic source.
It is also worth ing that it is necessary that a certain topic needs to reach a certain degree of notoriety so that it becomes an entry and that it is available for access to the common . This initiative prevents Wikipedia from maintaining its degree of credibility and from making random and often erroneous topics available for consultation.
And maybe it's understanding how online communities work that's a big win for Wikipedia. The platform was able to bring together a series of individuals from various places, with their particularities and worldviews. In the end, what we can say is that Wikipedia is, above all, a very plural source of information.
If we compare it with the so-called traditional encyclopedias, which are normally written, edited and formatted by a homogeneous and restricted group of researchers, this ends up working against Wikipedia itself. A traditional source of information does not have its credibility questioned all the time, precisely because of its immutable nature.
Still, is it possible to cite Wikipedia as a reliable source? 286g2b
Even in the midst of so many controversies, Wikipedia has a reliability index close to that of Encyclopaedia Britannica, one of the most respected encyclopedias in the world, with 2,92 errors per article for Britannica, while Wikipedia's rate is around 3,86.
But it's always worth ing that mistakes happen. There may be cases where months before information is properly corrected and, in the meantime, a network of misinformation can form around this topic. Until an editor makes the necessary changes, it is impossible to measure the extent of misinformation.
There is a Wikipedia guideline called Wikipedia's reliability, which predicts that certain information will be used maliciously, or that the tool will be used maliciously. To prevent this from happening, there is a history record of changes for each entry, to avoid destroying reputations, for example, since celebrity pages and well-known figures constitute, for the most part, the information available on Wikipedia.
But if you are a student and feel discouraged ing Wikipedia as a source of information, know that, knowing all this, the Wikimedia Foundation has stipulated three fundamental guidelines to promote a healthy and reliable environment in the exchange of information. First and foremost, Wikipedia writers and editors need to maintain, above all circumstances, a neutral point of view.
In practice, this means that the content should not be produced in a biased way, always seeking to be as complete and didactic as possible. Second, in turn, the research must not be autonomous, in the sense that it must always be written based on reliable material, even avoiding errors that reinforce the first step. Finally, every entry must make the material available in a transparent manner. Thus, as many editors as those who wish to consult the material can check the sources.
A community born of credibility 333u1k
It seems pretty easy to gain a certain degree of autonomy on Wikipedia, right? The answer is no. Like any group of people looking to deliver serious work, there are levels of hierarchy, which allows only those who meet certain requirements to actually have greater control over editing information.
To measure more accurately, let's go to the numbers: while there are about 38.4 million Wikipedians (name assigned to those who are part of Wikipedia), with 134 thousand active in the last month, there are only 1.206 s for the English language.
But not just that. In order to be as transparent as possible, Wikipedia makes the process of editing such an entry available. In practice, it is possible to see the entire discussion of Wikipedians regarding a certain topic, which makes the site more cautious against attacks.
Let's use the page Nintendo in Brazilian Portuguese as an example. When accessing its page, it is possible, in just one click, to follow the discussion of s in relation to the content of the entry, just click on the “discussion” tab. It is possible to notice that, even not being, in fact, a of Wikipedia, it does not in any way prevent access to this type of information.
The same goes for the entire edit history of the entry itself. This means that, in real time, anyone can follow all the edits made to the virtual encyclopedia. Just go to the “view history” tab. It contains information about all the changes made, by time and date, as well as the registration of the who made it. This even allows s to remedy possible mishaps.
It is worth ing that, subjects of sensitive topics are, for the most part, blocked for controversial edits, summarily based on the beliefs of their writer. This happens, for example, on pages like the Quran ou Big Bang. In this way, it avoids breaking with the neutral point of view that prevails in these entries. On these pages it is possible to a padlock in the upper right corner of each one.
For this, once again the hierarchy level prevails. While some entries are only available for editing only for s (gold level or protected page), moderate levels such as silver and blue are semi-protected, the first being also available for self-reviewers while the second for self-confirmed.
It is worth ing that Wikipedia's commitment extends to constant updating. For this reason, the largest encyclopedia makes sure that all entries that will be created and all that have been edited will go through and have gone through what they call abuse filter. This means that the guidelines will always be respected and properly documented. For this reason, all newly created entries appear in the list recent pages to be analyzed.
The same thing happens for each and every change that is also on the list. recent changes, that have search filters, such as displaying specific categories such as changes from uned editors or even catag entries written by editors with less than 10 editions.
Notices for s 3022z
Even though the content of Wikipedia seeks to be neutral as much as possible, there is the production of articles promoted as propaganda. When this happens, there will always be, at the top of the page, a warning, in yellow, that, in fact, such entry was produced with sponsorship, for example. For a more practical example, something very close to the well-known #ad on the pages of digital influencers on Instagram.
Another prerequisite that is often ignored is the presence of sources for consultation at the end of the page, very close to what we know as the bibliography of an encyclopedia. The notice, this time, will be available in blue, in the same way as the previous ad.
For these reasons, always check any and all sources of information linked to the entry you are consulting. This is because, in addition to being able to if it is correct, or even controversial, you can even find sources of information that best fit the type of research you are conducting, whether you are a student or not.
It is worth ing that research must always break the barriers of Wikipedia. For this reason, create a healthy routine in the search for information. Always try to consult with traditional media of information, if possible several sources. Look for expert points of view, different points of view, encyclopedias and academic papers.
We always need to promote autonomy in the search for information. Even as Wikipedia shows increasing commitment to promoting a safe environment for information consultation, we need to that it should only be a secondary source of information, never the main one.
Pig iron: crash course, The Guardian, James Cook University, MIT e Wired.
