Wikipedia talk:Wiki Ed/West Texas A and M University/Media Innovations (Fall 2022)

DB sources and plagiarism

It appears the rules and guidelines for Wikipedia are the same as generally citing any other document. You must watch how closely you paraphrase and to always make sure you cite your source. I like the fact that you can reuse your citations during the article by pressing the reuse button. I am cautiously excited about getting started. Lvmcintire (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I love being able to reuse citations, a great time saver and having the ability to do as much work as quickly and efficiently as possible. 145.224.3.211 (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laura, I agree with you about how it is important to watch how you paraphrase words that are referencing sources of factual information. If you paraphrase words too closely to their original sources, then that is considered plagiarism. Making sure to always cite sources is definitely important, since original authors should rightfully be given credit for their hard work. Brandon Figaro (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Brandon. It is always crucial to analyze what we have written before publishing it on Wikipedia. Although experienced contributors regularly read to control new additions and entries, it is our responsibility, as users, to ensure that our work does not contain plagiarism. BuffEditorFall2022 (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is crucial to respect people's work. During the training modules, I discovered many things. On one hand, I'm excited to start this project, but on the other, I'm slightly worried about plagiarism, close paraphrasing, and how to contribute to an article effectively. Moillet (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My theory has always been to reference and cite to avoid plagiarism. I am always worried by even putting the thought in my own words it may be too close to plagiarism. Bgballard1 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have never used Wikipedia so I am cautious about how this is going to go, especially on the backend. As user Lvmcintire mentioned, sources and plagiarism does seem pretty comfortable, for me at least, knowing that there isn't a super big difference in the way that a paper is formatted and the way that a Wiki page needs to be formatted. I do worry about the vast amount of information that is on Wiki, the worry I have is that I will accidentally have a very similar opinion on something that is already on the web.Mmonday17 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.224.3.211 (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mmonday, I agree with you about how it can be worrisome to have an opinion that is similar to something that's already on Wikipedia. Since there are so many sentences and phrases that have been stated for various viewpoints on topics, paraphrasing will be necessary. Brandon Figaro (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mmonday, I have never used it either, I am nervous about doing stuff wrong, but hopefully the training will help. I agree on similar opinions. It will be a lot of research and reading and rereading to make sure plagiarism is not an issue. I just hope our topics are something I understand. It appears knowing our topics are going to be a must to edit the articles.Lvmcintire (talk) 02:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the training module about sources, I found it to be quite fascinating that the facts in Wikipedia articles can be linked back to sources that are quite useful. This is very intriguing to me, as I initially believed that anyone could create content on Wikipedia without providing referential sources. Also, I perceive it to be quite fascinating that the in-text citations on Wikipedia articles can help people reach the References sections of the articles quite quickly. Furthermore, it is convenient that the in-line citations of Wikipedia articles must correspond to their respective sources in the References sections of Wikipedia articles. After reading the training module about plagiarism, I found it to be quite fascinating that making only slight changes to an author's words is still classified as plagiarism. If I'm able to find useful information for Wikipedia articles, then every sentence of information must be quoted in my own original words. The structure of each paraphrased sentence, as well as the words in each of those sentences, must be drastically different from the structure and wording in the original sources. Brandon Figaro (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Brandon, I think researching a topic and knowing the ins and outs of it are going to be a must to make sure we are not plagiarizing. It is worrisome in learning about a topic to not copy sentence structure and wording. In all my undergrad classes we were never allowed to use Wikipedia as a source, so it will be interesting to watch and learn the process. Lvmcintire (talk) 02:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism is definitely something that we need to worry about. It will be interesting to be writing in this format, I'm used to writing in a student format talking and writing about a certain topic, but I feel as this is going to be more informative and pulling in more outsourced material. So like a paper but a little different. 145.224.3.211 (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to be interesting working on this project, as user Lvmcintire said, because we'll see and be in the process of improving or editing an article. In high school, professors told us to look for other sources rather than focusing just on Wikipedia as they thought it wasn't always reliable. Moillet (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Moillet. Usually, Wikipedia allows us to obtain general information about a person, place or historical event. What teachers have always told us is that we cannot assume that everything that is posted on Wikipedia is 100% true. That is because any person can modify an article. I remember the time a Mexican player signed for a relatively unknown European team and most journalists decided to go to that club's Wikipedia page to check the roster. To their amazement, that club supposedly had Cristiano Ronaldo, Maradona, Pelé, Messi and Neymar as current members of the squad, which was false. BuffEditorFall2022 (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for any type of document or project, it is important to cite the sources and authors. Due to the fact that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, we should pay attention to everything because everybody can edit an article. Sometimes we don't think that plagiarism or close paraphrasing is a serious aspect. When I was in middle school, it happened to me to write some quotes without giving credit to the author. For example, I remember that I used Nelson Mandela's words on my Whatsapp status without citing him. It is crucial giving value to somebody's work. Some people believe that because it's online and affordable to anyone, we have the right to do whatever we want.Moillet (talk) 01:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Listing your sources is very important, and truthfully I didn't understand all of the elements that fell under plagiarism until this semester. I used to thing that paraphrasing was just fine without citing. Boy was I wrong. I learned that taking a quote or information and putting it in your own words is not good enough, it is still plagiarism. The correct way is to write down the concept of what that person is saying and put it into your own words. Even then, just cite it just in case. When finding sources, I was taught early on in college to only rely on peer reviewed academic journal articles, so that is basically all I get my sources from. I never use anything from a personal website or any medium where there could be bias, personal values, or use a call to action. Eamerrill (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered where this discussion board is located. Since I could remember paraphrasing was ok as long as you changed the way it was explained to you so that you could explain it to others. So after learning, and relearning, this training module, I realize that all of my instructors since last fall have included their sources for every lesson. I really hope it's like this in the other colleges on campus. Adamjiwa (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content gap

I would describe a content gap as a gap in information. For instance, you are writing on the topic of communication and there are cited sources for social media, verbal, but no content on non verbal communication. That means one needs to research and find credible sources on non verbal communication and add them to the article. Lvmcintire (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about how a content gap can be described as a gap in information. When a person is writing an article on a topic, they must provide some scholarly sources that are cited for every part of the topic. For example, a person who is writing an online article about various brands in the fashion industry would need to cite sources regarding the fashion brands of Coco Chanel, Dolce & Gabbana, and Gucci. In this mentioned example, someone who writes about Coco Chanel's fashion brand in an article without citing scholarly sources will end up making their writing contain a content gap. Brandon Figaro (talk) 02:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think sometimes people don't know where to find sources or try to avoid some subtopics, therefore a content gap is created. In order to have a covered topic, we need to face the difficult aspects of that specific topic as well and try to have as much as information about that. Moillet (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to find a content gap in several fields. It might occur because there is not enough research or information about that specific topic or it is difficult to find reliable sources. In addition, we tend to focus on the most dominant aspects without considering taking into account the minorities. Even if we try to narrow the content gap, there will always be some topics or parts that wouldn't be covered or faced. For example, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia therefore everybody can edit. While someone is editing, they have to be sure to cover not existent information or improve articles. Moillet (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about how content gaps can involve focusing on dominant aspects of topics, instead of focusing on minor aspects of the topics that are discussed by people who write articles. If writers do not find reliable sources for the least interesting parts of a topic, then writers will end up creating content gaps by not covering the uninteresting parts of a topic that could have ways to educate people. Since Wikipedia is perceived as an encyclopedia, writers of Wikipedia articles must always find reliable sources pertaining to their topics. Not only do reliable sources prevent writers of Wikipedia articles from making content gaps exist in their writings, but reliable sources also help writers and editors of Wikipedia articles be able to have credibility. Brandon Figaro (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, I think some of the hardest parts, or what is going to be the hardest part, is finding information that actually has a solid background to it, but is also new information. With how many things are on the internet, its so easy to read something and just immediately assume that it is true, but actually getting that hard evidence to get your portion in there. 145.224.3.211 (talk) 03:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are times in which people search on Wikipedia and the subjects they are interested in are not sufficiently covered. In other cases, the information about an event or notable human beings is not even there. We should be able to notice where content gaps occur and what we can do about that. During the training modules, we learned that this situation particularly affects academic content. BuffEditorFall2022 (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective, I would personally describe a content gap to be an area of an article that is missing crucial information. If someone is writing about particular topics such as criticizing films, then not having sources pertaining to how certain films such as romance movies are analyzed will end up creating a content gap because of how there's a lack of cited research articles regarding how romance movies are viewed for criticisms to be made. Therefore, avoiding this problem requires writers on websites such as Wikipedia to find research articles that can cover aspects of every topic that they mention. By fixing the problem with that particular strategy, writers on websites such as Wikipedia won't experience the problem of content gaps existing in their articles. Brandon Figaro (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another area where a content gap could be is an area where information is mentioned, but not cited with a credible source. Therefore, we would need to research and find credible sources and add them to the gap. Lvmcintire (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is true! I have seen plenty of articles in which entire seasons of a TV show are not adequately covered because the user that was in charge of copy-editing the article did not allocate enough time to research about credible and reliable sources. BuffEditorFall2022 (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to reduce content gap in order to face a topic in all its shades. Wikipedia found a good solution to reduce content gap by creating research articles, as you said. Furthermore, anyone can participate to improve a topic or an article, but the most fundamental element is to cite every time and find good resources. Moillet (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a content gap is present when their is a gap in information or event a gap in credibly sourcing to back up what has been presented. I think you make a good point, Moillet, in that Wikipedia's model of allow others can reduce these content gaps. While of course it can also create them as there are multiple users, not collaborating directly while writing. If the talk page is used correctly and people work to create the credible and complete articles, then the multi editor format can work well to reduce these gaps. Allthewall4 (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am just now finding this discussion page, I will add to your comment. With content gaps in the older information on the Wikipedia site, I believe that there needs to be an easier way to distinguish articles that do have these gaps. Along with your comment about using the talk page and people working together to make an informative and complete website, there needs to be a way to vet and verify that the people working on the site are also credible sources that are writing information. Wikipedia has a large amount of information that can be revised and it also has a huge issue to verifying people that rivals the users of Twitter. Adamjiwa (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to copy edit an article

To copy edit an article, choose the article to work on, read the article and see if there is misspelled words, grammatical errors or possible edit the language to make it sound better. Once you find something to fix, click edit, make the change, and save the changes. Always note the changes you made in the summary. Lvmcintire (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about how it is quite crucial to notice the edits that you made during the task of copyediting an article. When a writer on a website such as Wikipedia, By making note of how the mistakes were edited and rectified, that can help a writer be able to remember how those particular mistakes were edited. That is very useful for people who edit articles, since they shall be aware of how to specifically edit mistakes that they repeatedly encounter in multiple articles on websites such as Wikipedia. Brandon Figaro (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding copy editing articles on Wikipedia, I would always recommend to make sure that the chosen article really needs to be modified. Usually, expert Wikipedians decide to go back to the previous version of the page because the latest edit that was done did not improve the quality of the content. That is why I would suggest to take the necessary time to determine the kind of edit we are going to perform on any article. BuffEditorFall2022 (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting an article requires writers on websites such as Wikipedia to find articles that they perceive to need editing. As writers read the articles that they want to copyedit, they need to focus on trying to find grammatical errors that need to be corrected. When writers on Wikipedia find mistakes that must be corrected in articles, writers must click on the option for editing and make the necessary changes to the articles that are being copyedited. Every single edit must be saved, along with having summaries of the edits that are provided. Brandon Figaro (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editing an article is consisting in checking and verifying if the chosen article has grammatical mistakes and if everything is all right. Furthermore, it is fundamental to make a summary edit every time we edit something in order to allow the author and the other editors to see and track which change we made. Moillet (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that it is nice to know that 'someone' is going to have your back when it comes to writing. While people do have individual voices, some are just more well spoken than others and it's appreciated when someone comes in and helps beef it up a little bit. Mmonday17 (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about how copyediting involves the task of verifying if an article has mistakes. An article must be examined by a copyeditor to see if any grammatical errors exist within the article, and correcting those mistakes is important. Correcting grammatical errors is an important aspect of copyediting, since fixing grammatical errors in articles shall make the articles become easier to read. Brandon Figaro (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand that copy editing is the same process as proofreading your work. Without this extra step, people would have a difficult time reading someone else's work, and writers would have a hard time being deemed as creditable to an audience. adamjiwa (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editing allows for others to look into an article that has already been written and make edits to that article. It is a really crucial part of Wikipedia because it ensures that all articles are professionally written. No one wants to gather information that is illiterate. People rely on their information source to not only have accurate and quality content, but to be able to read the content correctly. Eamerrill (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Emily[reply]

Copy editing is beneficial for articles and pages on Wikipedia. It can be hard to ensure that your writing is fully correct, especially when you are staring at the same page for hours and hours. Sometimes a set of fresh eyes is just what your article needs to find mistakes and errors. This is how we grow and learn with writing. M Zick1 (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Madi[reply]

That's a very good point! One of the best ways to check for spelling errors is to read each word backwards, from right to left. There are users who add magnificent content to Wikipedia but might not know how to use the proper verb tense. Although it would seem impractical, It would be better if every revision to Wikipedia had to be approved by expert and properly accredited Wikipedians before the changes go live. BuffEditorFall2022 (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]