WEEK8: NGUYEN DUC DUY - Understanding Reliable Sources on Wikipedia

The reading explains how Wikipedia evaluates reliable sources and emphasizes that it does not create original knowledge but instead summarizes information from previously published materials. Reliable sources are generally those with strong editorial oversight, fact-checking processes, and established reputations, such as academic journals, books, and major news organizations. The guideline also highlights that reliability is not absolute but depends on context, meaning a source may be appropriate in one situation but not in another. One idea I found particularly interesting is that Wikipedia prioritizes “verifiability, not truth,” which means information must be supported by reliable, published sources rather than proven to be completely accurate. This was surprising because it suggests that knowledge on Wikipedia is shaped more by what can be confirmed than by what is objectively true. It also shows how credibility and consensus play a central role in the production of knowledge on collaborative platforms. Additionally, the restriction on self-published sources, such as blogs or social media, reflects Wikipedia’s effort to maintain quality and avoid misinformation. 

However, this raises an important question: "if widely accepted sources contain bias, outdated perspectives, or systemic errors, does Wikipedia risk reinforcing those problems?" I think the guideline could further explain how editors should deal with conflicting or imperfect sources in order to present more balanced and critically informed content.