User:Ana22gb
| This user is a student editor in Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Florida_International_University/Reacting_to_the_Past_-_French_Revolution_(Spring_2017). Student assignments should always be carried out using a course page set up by the instructor. It is usually best to develop assignments in your sandbox. After evaluation, the additions may go on to become a Wikipedia article or be published in an existing article. |
Discussion: Thinking about Wikipedia
- What do you think of Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality"?
I agree that all information posted on Wikipedia must be impartial, presenting both sides proportionately. This is in terms of the number of points made for each side of an argument as well as the amount taken up to express them. Wikipedia is meant to provide knowledge and inform on a particular topic, not to persuade a particular point of view. Wikipedia would not provide much help to people trying to learn about a person, event, thing, idea, etc. if it was written in a biased manner for the sole purpose of pushing one specific perspective. The definition of neutrality assures users and readers that they will be reading the full story of the topic being searched without worry that data is omitted to give emphasis to one stance over another. It also enforces use of reliable sources so as to avoid becoming argumentative and encourages fairness in terms of giving a complete overview of the main idea.
- What are the impacts and limits of Wikipedia as a source of information?
Wikipedia’s limit is its dependency on multiple people for research and editing; the fact that anyone can manage the articles poses a huge trust and legitimacy threat. There is no way of guaranteeing that everyone is utilizing reliable sources all the time and whether the information added is beneficial. On the other hand, Wikipedia has a tremendous impact in research because when individuals have questions about events or ideologies and locations, or human beings and history, they immediately go to Wikipedia to learn about it. Wikipedia has so much influence that it is the go-to site to start learning about anything or anyone. It has also transformed the way people can instruct one another as well as provide a place where incredible amounts and types of information can be found.
- On Wikipedia, all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. What kinds of sources does this exclude? Can you think of any problems that might create?
Reliable, published sources exclude blog posts and press releases or news articles because they are often based on personal opinions and perspectives to enforce specific thoughts or improve someone’s image. Blog posts do not generally have in-depth and accurate information; instead, it is based more on personal and biased research of the blogger. It is generally written online, and it is presented in an informal and conversational manner. Press releases are official statements given by officials on a topic or issue that is not necessarily objective; the goal of these are often to make a particular person or issue involved look favorable. Although it is formal, it is often presented with a biased tone, coming about as balanced in order to avoid controversy. Media outlets’ articles do not provide the full story or present all sides and stances. Some, such as CNN and Fox News, are known for being a liberal and conservative (respectively) news station; these tell stories as the according political party would view and comment about it. Exclusion of these is due to the inability to present information in a well-rounded and objective manner.
- If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, how might its content (and contributors) be different? What about 100 years from now?
If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, then information would be more rich in accuracy, depth, and quality because many of the facts that have been lost throughout history would have been recorded with this site. It would have been a useful mode of storage for data and timelines. Information would have also included the points of view for all the parties involved because often times certain aspects of history are reported differently in diverse parts of the world. Wikipedia would also have allowed many people to become contributors to the information being exposed because powerful individuals would not have been able to regulate such an advanced and public system. In contrast, 100 years from today, the contributors of Wikipedia will be machines and robots whose function would serve to capture data through a simple recognition software. This will turn a picture of an event or person into a sequence of data gathering that will no longer require human input or contact. Information would not just carry great validity but most importantly, it would be more objective and factual. Advanced technology would not make things personal or incorporate individual interpretations.