Three important ideas/things from the video today are that 10s of thousands of people contribute to Wikipedia, Wiki is a kind of website that allows volunteers to make changes to pages, and Wikipedia is one of the top 5 sites on the web, but the most important thing I learned today is that every change is reviewed and must abide by two rules: verifiability and a neutral point of view.
Analyzing a Wikipedia Article
I reviewed two articles with the same topic that are written in very different ways. The Wounded Knee Massacre as a Wikipedia entry and the Wounded Knee Massacre in a U.S. History Textbook.
Some of the differences between the book and the website version are that Wikipedia has way more information on the topic. On Wikipedia there are hyperlinks that the reader can click on if they want to learn more about the topic or if there is something that they don't know about while in the book the reader doesn't have as many options. They are also different in the way that they present the information. The book source just seems to touch the surface of the historical event while the Wikipedia source goes in depth. It is hard for me to provide how they are similar because they both seem so different! One of the similarities that I noticed is that they both provide pictures and the obvious one is that they are both discussing the Wounded Knee Massacre.
Overall the Wikipedia resource on the Wounded Knee Massacre seems to have more potential for meaningful learning. It gives a ton of beneficial information and resources for more information if needed. I think that it is the more beneficial resource for learning about this historical event.
Is the information reliable?
I think that the information is very reliable. There are so many people that contribute to each article that help construct the final product. People all over the word contribute to make Wikipedia articles. Many articles are examined and from those articles few are chosen to construct the article presented on Wikipedia.
Someone wanted to add to the information given in the Wounded Knee Massacre on Wikipedia, but the information that they proposed contradicted other information that was already in the article. They looked at the source that the new information came from, but could not come to a decision on which information was most reliable. They then decided to take both pieces of information out of the article and asked for help and thoughts on the matter. You can read more about this by following this article.
When I looked over three of the many people that have the opportunity to edit articles I notice that they all have different qualifications. They all provided different types of information about themselves. One of them only stated his/her past professions. This makes it difficult for me to tell if I can trust them or not. One of the two that wrote a lot seemed to be more educated than the other, but this is very hard to tell from just what they chose to write about themselves.
I looked over some of the users on Wikipedias conversations with others. This information shows that the users are in touch with others and this helps make sure that all of the information is presented in the best way and is also valid. Some of the information posted is questioning some of the articles validity. I now feel that the information on Wikipedia is more reliable because users keep in touch and are always trying to make the site better for the viewers. Also all of the information has to have a source that backs it up and it can be questioned or even deleted.
Neutrality on Wikipedia
One of the examples that I found in the article on Wikipedia on the Wounded Knee Massacre that shows that they try to maintain neutrality is...
"Specific details of what triggered the massacre are debated. According to some accounts, Yellow Bird began to perform the "Ghost Dance""..."According to commanding Gen. Nelson A. Miles, a "scuffle occurred between one warrior who had [a] rifle in his hand and two soldiers. The rifle was discharged and a battle occurred, not only the warriors but the sick Chief Spotted Elk, and a large number of women and children who tried to escape by running and scattering over the prairie were hunted down and killed.""
Wikipedia In the News!
If I were to write an argument paper with the claim that Wikipedia is a reliable source of information three pieces of evidence found from this article that I could use to prove this point would be...
- "Only registered Wikipedia editors with at least some experience are permitted to edit the page."
- "much of Wikipedia is not edited by just “anyone.”"
- "“A key group of us keep an eye on articles that have become more popular to make sure that Wikipedia’s most-read content is of a reasonably high standard”"
No comments:
Post a Comment