User:Andreasvg/sandbox

Welcome

Welcome, venturing stranger. If you're here, you're either a French peasant/guard (professor) from my RTTP French Revolution class, or you're actually a Wikipedia editor uninvolved with role-playing games that has been seeing me around. As the king, I'm so damn bored with these whining, self-righteous "assembly members", and it'd be pretty refreshing to see someone from the outside. In any case, whomever you are, I want to clarify:

• I plan my articles and respond to assignment questions/share reflections on this page. I would like if others would include their suggestions or any observations they'd have for me in my talk page.

Any and all suggestions are dearly appreciated, I implore you to go right ahead. It is through this feedback that I'm able to make the best contributions I can!

A king can joke. Take me lightly (but really, don't).

"There is little that can withstand a man who can conquer himself." - King Louis XVI

Questions

Week 2

1. Wikipedians often talk about "content gaps." What do you think a content gap is, and what are some possible ways to identify them?
   • Content gaps refer to missing, relevant information that could complete an article. The term "content gap" can be used to bring up all sorts of inconsistencies, be it vague chronology or imbalanced views. People visit Wikipedia expecting substantial information on their searched topic, and it's an editors job to constantly improve the content and provide that. Some possible ways to identify these gaps would be by taking a close look at the sources used, and by generally reading through to see if the article raises any confusion/does not answer important questions.
2. What are some reasons a content gap might arise? What are some ways to remedy them?
   • As mentioned, sources are very important when it comes to filling in the gaps of an article, and a typical reason as to why these gaps may occur is due to a lack of enough sources. If one draws from more quality sources, and from research of different areas, one is more likely to arrive at sound conclusions about a topic and find the small details that will bring the article together.
3. Does it matter who writes Wikipedia?
   • It does and it doesn't. Wikipedia is unique in that every person from any walk of life can contribute to the encyclopedia, however, these people are closely monitored to assure that they are putting forth accurate and valuable information. It matters that the people who write on Wikipedia be conscious of what they write and what others have to say in regards to it.
4. What does it mean to be "unbiased" on Wikipedia? How is that different, or similar, to your own definition of "bias"?
   • To be unbiased on Wikipedia means to lay down the facts and describe conflicts while making it clear that we are not engaging our own opinions. This naturally means that our sources must also not be biased, like a blog might be, for example. It is pretty similar to my own definition of being "unbiased"; I agree that in speaking neutrally and withholding a partial tone, we provide the most helpful account.

Week 4

1. Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information. Why?
   • Wikipedia is already an indirect source, so it would make sense that it shouldn't also draw from indirect sources. Bloggers and even the press may be very committed to their work, promising to safeguard the truth. Nonetheless, they're simply not as credible when you consider that anyone with a motive or opinion could be creating this content. Therefore, it's always preferable to seek information from professionals or peer-edited articles in order to assure that Wikipedia is a trustworthy place for others to quickly learn about a subject. When we stick to searching in books, university publishings, etc., we can assure that even though we are summarizing, we're providing well-researched facts. Otherwise, Wikipedia would not be the reputable online encyclopedia it is.
2. What are some reasons you might not want to use a company's website as the main source of information about that company?
   • Besides avoiding copyright issues, there are a few other important reasons we should steer away from company websites, the most important being that a company's website isn't likely to be unbiased. While a company's main site may offer important information on the organizations background and be useful to find dates for your article and such, it's very possible that it could be missing key information that an unbiased, external source could provide. In order to represent a company fairly, we cannot just reiterate the positive details on their page. If a user wanted to, they could just learn of a company through their site; if they choose Wikipedia, they want a rounded and complete story.
3. What is the difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism?
   • Plagiarism can be briefly defined as simply taking credit for someone else's words (be it directly or through paraphrase), while copyright violations can refer to the use of other original and licensed work (images, music, etc.) without the permission of the creator. Both of these acts are by no means permitted, within nor outside of Wikipedia, but they have some interesting differences. It seems to me that it could be more unclear whether someone has committed plagiarism or not, while copyright violations are more blatant, easily pointed out. In the Wikipedia page delineating copyright violations, it's stated that "media which is not available under a suitable free license and which does not meet the non-free content criteria, should be assumed to be unacceptable," so it's generally clear what is and isn't safe to use. On the other hand, we should be very wary of our editing and our written contributions, making sure that we properly cite and restate information in our own words to avoid plagiarism at all cost.
4. What are some good techniques to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism?
   • Naturally, the better we understand the subject for ourselves, the easier it should become to avoid paraphrasing and plagiarism. It should help plenty to have many reliable sources to draw from and compare information, checking for any inconsistencies and trying to narrow down what is important and what truly belongs on Wikipedia. When we also keep "notability and verifiability" in mind, this strategy helps us zero in on what should be added. Before adding anything, we should try summarizing each reference for our own understanding, and then we could feel free to take from our summaries in our contributions. Finally, what will also determine how we will describe our findings in our own words is the style in which the article we're working on has been written. It's important to keep coherence and a natural flow throughout, and this become very hard to do if we were to copy directly.

Week 6

1. What do you think of Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality"?
   • Wikipedia's rule of editing in a neutral point-of-view is a necessity; there are plenty of sites on the Internet where one can find opinionated articles, but Wikipedia is reliable in the sense that you can expect for its articles to offer the unbiased truths. I believe everything comes to light when we stick to providing the facts and presenting arguments in equal weight; we should allow for others to determine for themselves how they would regard a certain person or topic. As we often stress, Wikipedia is not a place for biased references- nevermind biased articles. In our training, it's suggested that readers should not be able to guess an editors stance, and while it can be very difficult to remain neutral, I think it becomes easier when we make it our objective to offer the most fair presentation on our subject through the support of the best sources.
2. What are the impacts and limits of Wikipedia as a source of information?
   • I've always regarded Wikipedia as a place to find a quick "cheat sheet" on any topic, reliable on a day-to-day basis and easy, yet not concrete enough to reference, seeing as editors are unable to directly quote other sources but that they're expected to summarize from their own understanding. I have to say that this part can be a little frustrating, as I think some things could not be better said than in the original way they were said. But on the flip side, I think the great thing about that limitation is that Wikipedia presents not just the facts but the general, modern understanding of the subject. It's the collaboration of the efforts of people all over, and Wikipedia's inclusive nature makes us all feel part. The limitations are found in our inability to add our personal opinions, experiences, nor to lazily copy another source. Somewhere in the middle of it all we find balance, and through these limitations we find truth. We're all here seeking the truth together. (Lame but true?)
3. 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?
   • As previously mentioned, there are many sources that may initially seem valid to use when editing Wikipedia that we simply can't attribute to, such as press releases and blog posts. But more generally, we must carefully consider much of the content we find online or that we find for free when we're thinking of using it as a reference to our additions. It seems to be true, even in this context, that what comes easily isn't worth our time! Reliable, published sources are more often than not books and academic articles with limited access, access that editors may even have to pay for. The problems this creates are obvious: not everyone may have access to such publications and documents. In turn we may often resort to weaker references, but I think that public and university libraries truly help remediate this issue and that we're lucky to live in a society where reliable information is never too far away.
4. If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, how might its content (and contributors) be different? What about 100 years from now?
   • I think the true virtue of technology is that it has greatly fascilitated the search for information and it has "put everyone on the same page", as opposed to how the world probably was a century ago, with a more limited group of people getting to collaborate in such projects. I think that's exactly how Wikipedia would've been, and therefore it would be far from what it is today, as it's recognized for it's inclusion. It may have been better in one sense, considering that the Internet has also made it easier to spread the wrong information, with the complete freedom it has, and editors may too easily trust what they find online. I would hope that 100 years from now, Wikipedia could excel in drawing more people of different walks of life to edit its pages and that information would only get easier to acquire, but I fear people may only get lazier with the detail that Wikipedia requires. Or even worse... Information and resources like Wikipedia could always be taken away from the public if we let them be taken from us. Moral of story: don't take the present for granted.

Planning

Week 4: Possible topics

Louis XVI - Legacy

A part reads: Despite his signing of the "Civil Constitution of the Clergy", Louis had been described as a martyr by Pope Pius VI in 1793. In 1820, however, a memorandum of the Congregation of Rites in Rome, declaring the impossibility of proving that Louis had been executed for religious rather than political reasons, put an end to hopes of canonization.

The latter sentence doesn't seem to have a reference tied to it and I intend to find it, for starters. This section interests me because I'd like to elaborate on the influence the last absolute monarch of France has had in literature, art, politics, and the world as a whole. A book titled French Legends: The Life and Legacy of King Louis XVI by Charles Rivers Editors and books on the Ancien Regime should be able to help me learn and gather more information on the ashes left over from the end of a glorious yet forgotten time, a time of kings and holy dominance in France. I think there should be more of an influence than what has been included in this article, as Bourbon restoration remained a popular topic in France years after Louis XVI's death, and even in modern times people do discuss the benefits of France returning to a constitutional monarchy.

Louis XVI - Revolutionary constitutional reign, 1789–1792

I think this section is also a bit bland and missing many sources, this section is a transitional part of Louis XVI's article because it explains how the combination of fatal flaws in this king's ruling fueled the revolution and anger of the people, pushing the king to attempt to flee the country with his family. This section could use more structure and I could find more information/elaborate on his relationships with his advisers, his efforts (or lack thereof) to turn the events of this time around during his time in the Tuileries Palace, and more.

Edict of Versailles

This article is extremely brief when compared to other articles on documents/decrees/edicts during the French Revolution. I edited this article a bit in week 3, could possibly continue working on it, adding sections and structure to it. This is an active article and has been last edited this month, even before I stepped in, but it doesn't have the activity of Louis XVI's article, and there's not much conversation on the talk page. It was an important aspect of Louis XVI's rule, tying with the Enlightment movement of the late 19th century, so I'm not sure why it's lacking in comparison to say, the 1782 Edict of Tolerance, but I'll find out.

Week 5: Decided topics

Decided topics and contributions

I've decided to take up editing the article of my own character, King Louis XVI, as I feel after reading it thoroughly, along with its talk page, there is room for more elaboration on specific areas such as his motivations and the legacy and overall significance of his short, untimely reign. In our game, the time we are experiencing is during Louis XVI's constitutional reign, and in taking part I've learned many details regarding the decision-making process and the king's personal connections during this crucial time before the king's trial and death. Therefore, I feel confident that I'll be able to gather some significant information to add onto this section of the article, which is a bit short in comparison to the section on his time as an absolute monarch.

Apart from adding what may be just some more context, I'd like to add the closest, documented number of men that were part of the French Royal Army during revolutionary times. It's important to note that in this time, many of King Louis XVI's soldiers had become unorganized and disparate as the kings power declined, this may well be the reason why we've yet to have a clear number of men in the Royal Army for the purposes of the game. Editors participating on the talk page have shared that there was some contradictions found in dates and other information with other articles, so I will take care to review this more. Furthermore, I'll also verify references and add sources to statements lacking that support. My general goal with Louis XVI's article is to offer more insight on the internal factors that led to his loss of control over the country and hurried demise, touching upon what he could have done differently (would this be okay, or biased? I think as long as my tone is factual, it should be in the clear.), and solidifying the existing details by reviewing them carefully.

These contributions may not be enough, as King Louis XVI's article is pretty extensive, so I would still like to keep open the option of adding onto the Edict of Versailles and French Royal Army articles, along with any others that I may find important information for while reading my sources.

References

1893-1978., Faÿ, Bernard, (1968-01-01). Louis XVI; or The end of a world;. W.H. Allen. ISBN 0491000405.

1939-, Johnson, Alison, (2013-01-01). Louis XVI and the French Revolution. McFarland. ISBN 9780786473557. OCLC 865033927.

A., Caiani, Ambrogio (2012-01-01). Louis XVI and the French Revolution, 1789-1792. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107631014. OCLC 802746106.

Charles River Editors (2013). French Legends: The Life and Legacy of King Louis XVI. CreateSpace Publishing. ISBN 9781494300180.

"Edict of Toleration, November 1787". chnm.gmu.edu. Retrieved 2017-02-20.

John., Hardman, (2000-01-01). Louis XVI : The Silent King. Arnold. ISBN 9780340706503. OCLC 959636426.

King Louis XVI, Benefactor of America, and Martyr - Dominicana Vol. 15 No. 2

Michael., Walzer, (1992-01-01). Regicide and revolution : speeches at the trial of Louis XVI. Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231082592. OCLC 26932951.

Munro., Price, (2003-01-01). The fall of the French monarchy : Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette and the Baron de Breteuil. Pan. ISBN 9780330488273. OCLC 59340837.

"The Edict of Toleration (November 29th, 1787) | Musée virtuel du Protestantisme". www.museeprotestant.org. Retrieved 2017-02-20.

Other Notes

I've identified what stood out to me as being missing information and have determined from the talk page and our own live game what additions could cater to the people's interest in a historic monarch, as well as what numbers and dates should be verified. I am revisiting this character as my role requires me to and in an effort to improve his own Wikipedia article, and I hope through this experience I'll gain a far better, deeper understanding while also helping others do the same.

Week 6: Drafting

Drafting Article Sections

Please click here to visit my drafting of King Louis XVI's edited article.