Wikipedia Reliability Worksheet

Wikipedia Reliability Worksheet

Article title:
Answer the following questions to see how reliable a Wikipedia article is.

1. 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.	Yes
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.	Yes
The neutrality of this article is disputed.	Yes
The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.	Yes
This needs copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling.	Yes
This may contain material not appropriate for an encyclopedia.	N
This article only describes one highly specialized aspect of its associated subject.	Yes
This article requires authentication or verification by an expert.	Yes
This article or section needs to be updated.	Yes
This article may not provide balanced geographical coverage on a region.	N
This is missing citations or needs footnotes.	N
This article does not cite any references or sources.	N

2. Read through the article and see if it meets the following requirements:

Is it written in a clear and organized way?	Y
Is the tone neutral (not taking sides)?	Y
Are all important facts referenced (you're told where they come from)?	Y
Does the information provided seem complete or does it look like there are gaps (or just one side of the story)?	Complete

3. 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:
   
   Possibly unreliable references:
   
   Definitely unreliable references:
   
   
4. 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 class. It does make me doubt the information that has been provided and I probably wouldnt use any of the information in a research paper.

---

---

---

---

---

5. 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.

---

If I was a novice to the Lewis and Clark Expedition I wouldn't use this Wikipedia article as a starting point. The three editors I looked up had all been deleted almost 5 years ago. The information being discussed by the editors is petty and people are not using the correct sources to cite their information. The Lewis and Clark Expedition should be a lengthy article and there are only 4 or 5 tabs of content. Looking up the users for Wikipedia made me feel LESS confident in the encyclopedia and the information I've been reading. This subject should have a lot of information being used but it just isn't reaching my standards.

Double Journal Entry #4

"A growing body of scholarship suggests potential benefits of these emergent forms of participatory culture, including opportunities for peer-to-peer learning, a changed attitude towards intellectual property, the diversification of cultural expression, the development of skills valued in the modern workplace, and a more empowered conception of citizenship. Access to this participatory culture functions as a new form of the hidden curriculum, shaping which kids will succeed and which will be left behind as they enter schools and workplaces."



After reading this essay, I found this particular quote to be truthful and I agree with the statement 100 percent. There are certain forms of participatory culture that emerge everyday and most of them allow people to grow intellectually and creatively. Social networking sites have allowed people to express and share ideas dealing with culture, politics, environmental issues, jokes, workplace opportunities etc. The access to participatory culture is beneficial to people because it allows creativity to blossom and different view points on issues to be heard. I believe schools should take a step to ensure every child has access to creative expression and many different ideas to help shape the citizen they will become in the future. Wikipedia can help promote 21st century skills by allowing new information to surface with ideas and concepts being explained in a more thorough way. Wikipedia also allows people to really digest what they are researching by checking the source of where the information is provided. I think Wikipedia can be used in classrooms but there should be an introductory lesson on how it works and how it should be used. I think the information that is on Wikipedia is normally accurate but students should be taught the danger of using an encyclopedia that can be added onto and edited by everyday people.

This is a picture I posted on Facebook. It's a painting by Alex Grey. It's expressing an idea or feeling I was having on a particular day. My motive behind the picture wasn't hoping people would "like" it, I just thought sharing a beautiful, creative picture would be sure to catch someones eyes and make them think.

Sources: Jenkins , H. (2007). What wikipedia can teach us about the new media literacies (part one). Retrieved from http://henryjenkins.org/2007/06/what_wikipedia_can

Wikipedia/4 ways to use Wikipedia...

After reading the short article on Wikipedia, I've answered the following questions.

A.) What is Wikipedia?
        Answer: "Wikipedia is a multilingual, Web-based encyclopedia project, operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, a nonprofit organization." 

B.) How would you answer the question posed in this piece “How reliable can a source be when anyone can edit it?”?
        Answer: The source cannot be reliable if anyone can edit the posting. Although there probably are people who catch mistakes, not all postings can be monitored and filtered for absolute correct content.
      
C.) Who do the creators of Wikipedia place their trust in when it comes to weeding out misinformation?
        Answer: The Wikiscanner and 10-20 paid employees.

D.) Why did founder Larry Sanger leave Wikipedia?
         Answer: Mr. Sanger left Wikipedia, believing that it should give more authority to experts; he has since created another site, Citizendium that does just that.

E.) What would abuse or vandalism look like on a Wikipedia page?
         Answer: Self-interested editing by prominent businesses and governments.


F.) What do the statistics quoted in the third paragraph of this piece reveal?
         Answer: People are using the internet to do research on a broad range of topics from all over the world. Wikipedia is the new encyclopedia.

G.) Why do you think Wikipedia is so successful?
          Answer: I believe Wikipedia is so successful because the information they provide is easily obtainable through the website and for the most part, when writing research papers for school or doing research for a job, the information found on Wikipedia is considered credible.

H.) Why might Wikipedia’s creators not want to accept advertising?
          Answer: I don't think Wikipedia wants its information to be influenced by the funds they would receive through advertising.

I.) How does Wikiscanner help increase the reliability of Wikipedia entries?
          Answer: A tool allowing the IP address of anonymous editors of the site to be easily checked. The Wikiscanner exposed people, businesses and governments who were using Wikipedia to promote themselves in the best light, not truly the facts.


I would not use Wikipedia for a research paper or for any reliable information. Although, most of the information is probably accurate, there is always a chance that it isn't and I wouldn't want to incorporate any wrong information into a teaching or assignment. The value of Wikipedia for teachers could be using the references that editors publish at the the end of an article. A teacher could find a book or article that is relevant to their teachings without having to directly use Wikipedia.

Learning Styles

After watching this particular video on learning styles, I feel that there are a lot of unanswered questions on this man, Daniel Willingham's theory. He claims that a teacher’s goal is to teach students the meanings of a subject. The example he used was the definition of an opera. What if the student could not see the definition but could only hear it being read aloud? The definition of an opera and let’s say, a musical, could seem similar and very confusing, therefore going to an opera would help this particular student to understand the MEANING of the word. Does that mean that student is a strictly auditory learner? Probably not and I can agree with Mr. Willingham on that but people have a preferred method of how they learn certain subjects. I do believe teachers should incorporate different learning styles to keep students engaged in what they’re learning. If a teacher uses only one style, he or she will become predictable and will lose the attention of the class. Who would it hurt to have all styles of teaching in one lesson? Although this man in the video makes valid points, his research wasn’t presented thorough enough for me to believe that "good teaching is good teaching." What makes a teacher "good" is the flexibility with their students and the styles they prefer to learn from.

Comic

Double Journal Entry #3

Quote: "The council, which has picketed the Scripps National Spelling Bee, prefers its own phonetic method of spelling reform, called SoundSpel. The group offers a down loadable version of SoundSpel (ententetranslator.com/IDL.htm) that can instantly translate an entire novel’s worth of standard English into a more spellable, if less recognizable, form."

Response: After reading Ammon Shea's, The Keypad Solution, I found the quote above to be the most memorable resource regarding American English yet. I was shocked to discover a tool, SoundSpel, being used to help people read more efficiently by spelling words incorrect but making them recognizable in a way to sound them out easier.  For example, the month of December would be spelled, Desember. The word "people" is spelled "peepl" using SoundSpel. I think this could be a remarkable tool for an individual who struggles with identifying the sound of the American English language. I found the image below from the americanliteracy.com website. I chose this image because it shows how Soundspel is used while taking a stance on its importance to American English. I found the Soundspel image easier to read and comprehend and believe it has a place in our language. When I was younger some words became confusing because although they can share the same ending, such as through, cough or thorough. Those words proved to be difficult to spell and read because of the variation of sound. I think Soundspel gives a unique opportunity for people to read quicker, easier and with better comprehension. If I had a child that was struggling to read, I would employ Soundspel. If I couldn't comprehend parts of a novel, I would employ Soundspel. I think its a great tool that will be used for jeneraeshun's to come.

Sources:

Shea, A. (2010, January 22). The keypad solution. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/magazine/24FOB-onlanguage-t.html?_r=1