I learned that if you go on and change something it goes live immediately. That it is almost exclusively volunteer funded by donations from the public and only has one main employee.
I agree with the idea of locking down articles that are being continually changed during times of controversy. I like the idea of using the social concept of cooperation as a means to create neutrality and diversity. In theory it sounds great. Whether it works out that way is a different story. The one thing I don’t agree with is letting anonymous users change things. I think that every article should be able to have its sources traced.
Not really I think that because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone many professionals & highly educated people probably want to make sure that the information is correct & thorough for anyone wanting to find the information. Also people who genuinely care about the topic are more likely to supply information for the topic. Unfortunately all these people write and post information in much different ways and that is probably why reading it is so difficult. It can seem choppy overly technical or juvenile or a combination of all of the above.
I sometimes use Wikipedia in these ways especially when I have hit a wall with research or don’t have enough resources. If I have run out of information to prove my point or possibly need other viewpoints.
Find a Wikipedia Article and complete the Wikipedia worksheet.
Post the information in a blog posting
Wikipedia Reliability Worksheet
Article title: St. Patrick’s Day
Answer the following questions to see how reliable a Wikipedia article is.
- Start with the main page. Does it have any cleanup banners that have been placed there to indicate problems with the article? (A complete list is available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/
Cleanup.)
Any one of the following cleanup banners means the article is an unreliable source:
This article or section has multiple issues.
|
no
|
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
|
No
|
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
|
No
|
The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.
|
No
|
This needs copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling.
|
No
|
This may contain material not appropriate for an encyclopedia.
|
No
|
This article only describes one highly specialized aspect of its associated subject.
|
No
|
This article requires authentication or verification by an expert.
|
No
|
This article or section needs to be updated.
|
No
|
This article may not provide balanced geographical coverage on a region.
|
No
|
This is missing citations or needs footnotes.
|
No
|
This article does not cite any references or sources.
|
No
|
- Read through the article and see if it meets the following requirements:
Is it written in a clear and organized way?
|
yes
|
Is the tone neutral (not taking sides)?
|
Yes
|
Are all important facts referenced (you're told where they come from)?
|
Yes
|
Does the information provided seem complete or does it look like there are gaps (or just one side of the story)?
|
complete
|
- Scroll down to the article's References and open them in new windows or tabs. Do they seem like reliable sources? (For help in determining the general reliability of a source, check out the Knowing What's What and What's Note: The 5 Ws (and 1 "H") of Cyberspace handout.)
Reliable references:
http://www. http://www.saintpatrickfoundation.org/spf-in-an-
Possibly unreliable references:
http://iak.co.kr/events/
Definitely unreliable references:
http://humphrysfamilytree.com/OMeara/james.html
- Click on the Discussion tab. How is the article rated on the Rating Scale (Stub, Start, C, B, GA, A, FA)? What issues around the article are being discussed? Do any of them make you doubt the article's reliability?
The article is rated B. It is rated on different areas such as holidays Ireland, USA, and religion with different levels of importance and it even says that some of what is discussed is myth legend and tradition and is separate from the real St. Patrick which makes it seem more reliable.
- Based on the above questions, give the article an overall ranking of Reliable, Partially Reliable or Unreliable.
- You may use a Reliable article as a source (but remember that even if a Wikipedia article is reliable, it should never be your only source on a topic!)
- You may use a Partially Reliable article as a starting point for your research, and may use some
of its references as sources, but do not us it as a source. - You should not use an Unreliable article as a source or a starting point. Research the same topic in a different encyclopedia.
How did you rank this article (Reliable, Partially Reliable or Unreliable)? Give at least three reasons to support
your answer.
your answer.
I Rate it as reliable because it has sources from news, history and cultural areas. It states clearly that St. Patrick’s Day and the actual St. Patrick are separate entities. It gives a breakdown of how celebrations in Ireland differ from the US And many other countries
No comments:
Post a Comment