User:Bridginator/sandbox

Week 2: What's a content gap?

• Wikipedians often talk about "content gaps." What do you think a content gap is, and what are some possible ways to identify them?
  • I believe a content gap is present when information about a certain topic within the writing community is missing. A possible way to identify a content gap is by looking for an area in which substantial information is missing. Another technique to identify a content gap is by detailing the challenges that a specific audience is facing and determining whether or not that issue has valuable information surrounding its main points. Content gaps are likely to occur when the issues that affect the readers are not being met with ample information, as it is key to build content around the objective of providing remedies to these issues.

• What are some reasons a content gap might arise? What are some ways to remedy them?
  • A content gap may arise when the writers do not express their ideas on a certain issue. This is most likely the case when it is an issue that does not have a considerable effect on their lives. Moreover, a lack of interest may be the main cause for the majority of content gaps, as writers may sometimes be fixated on a central topic that attracts most of their attention. A way to remedy such gaps is by keeping an open mind on the subject at hand. It is imperative to target the specific problems that the target audience is faced with and provide information to accommodate to the demands of the target audience.

• Does it matter who writes Wikipedia?
  • Wikipedia is open to everyone. Anyone can contribute to a variety of articles; however, bots and professional wikipedians periodically check the content being added and make corrections. There are specific expectations that must be met. For example, the information being added must originate from credible sources. Also, articles must be neutral- meaning no bias should be present. Articles are strictly informative, not persuasive. As long as the writer provides information that is unbiased and meets the demands of the readers, the goal of Wikipedia is accomplished.

• What does it mean to be "unbiased" on Wikipedia? How is that different, or similar, to your own definition of "bias"?
  • Being unbiased on Wikipedia entails that no original information is being added, and that the information that is being added is derived from credible sources. On the other hand, my definition of bias solely revolves around depicting a more positive light on one side of the argument. In my perspective, original information may be unbiased as long as the writer does not construct a clear preference to one point of view.

Week 4: Thinking about sources and plagiarism

• Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information. Why?
  • Blog posts and press releases are generally unreliable sources because they are largely user-generated. This type of content can be unreliable primarily because it is written based on users' own reviews, making them susceptible to bias. The credibility of their sources is usually unknown.
• What are some reasons you might not want to use a company's website as the main source of information about that company?
  • A company's website is not the best source to use when writing about that particular company because the available information is often times biased. The websites will most likely include positive information, giving a false holistic view. Generating a stream of information from these websites would continue the biased propogation of this information.
• What is the difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism?
  • Although copyright violation and plagiarism are similar in many aspects, some key differences greatly distinguish the two from one another. A copyright violation occurs when someone else's work is used without permission. Copyright infringement can still occur with appropriate citing of the author or copyright holder. Overall, a copyright violation is a violation of the law. On the other hand, plagiarism occurs when someone else's work is used without adequate attribution. Plagiarism is a violation of ethical norms.
• What are some good techniques to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism?
  • Close paraphrasing and plagiarism can easily be avoided with practice. Rather than writing information while reading from a source, it is helpful to read the source entirely and later summarize it in your own words without referring back to the content.

Week 4: Choose possible topics

Bertrand Barère - This is my character's article. Although there is a decent amount of information on Wikipedia already, there are some key details that have been left out. Small details will help put everything together and allow the flow of information in the article to be fluid and more reader-friendly. For example, nowhere in the article does it say that Barère would publish a newspaper called Le Point du Jour. Because of my focused approach on gathering the relevant details on Bertrand Barère, it would be ideal to have the opportunity to give the information out to the readers of Wikipedia. This would solidify Wikipedia's role as one of the main sources of information on Bertand Barère.

Week 5: Finalize your topic / Find your sources

I will be working on Bertrand Barère, my character's article. After sifting through various books and memoirs, I have come to the conclusion that most of the information already on this topic in Wikipedia only focuses on Barère's impact in the French Revolution. However, it is critical to note that to truly understand the motives behind this revolutionary's actions, the reader must be able to read and analyze his interactions with other influential minds of the revolution. For instance, in the work Memoirs of Bertrand Barère, Barère expresses his sentiments towards the likes of LeChapellier and Mirabeau. Through his reflective thoughts, he conveys the perceived immorality behind LeChapellier's decisions and the reverence he held for Mirabeau. Such thoughts are left unmentioned in the Wikipedia article, as this work provides great insight into Barère's views on what is unjust and what truly embodied France. Understanding the complex interactions amongst these individuals allows the reader to grasp the greater picture and, consequently, comprehend the intricate systems of interactions that took place throughout this time.

Bibliography

Andrew, E. (2011). Imperial republics: revolution, war, and territorial expansion from the English Civil War to the French Revolution. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Barère, B. (1896). Memoirs of Bertrand Barère: chairman of the Committee of Public Safety during the Revolution. London: H.S. Nichols.

Gershoy, L. (1962). Bertrand Barere: a reluctant terrorist. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press.

Week 5: Draft your article

The information in this Wikipedia article is very dense, yet it seems to not transition smoothly between ideas. There are certain instances in which the article diverts its attention from the central idea it is articulating. Additionally, the current form of the article could include more insight as to what happened in Barère’s early life. Such information could include how he gained revolutionary thought throughout his youth or how developments in France impacted his view on how society should function. Much information is spent on conveying his educational background when the societal aspects of his childhood are just as- if not more- important. The article does a great job of condensing the information into three main parts by utilizing the chronological progression of his lifetime. However, a large majority of it is comprised of his time with the republican party and the Feuillants. The other periods of his life are just as important, as they also undoubtedly helped mold his moderate ideals.

Week 6: Thinking about Wikipedia

• What do you think of Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality"?
  • Wikipedia’s definition of neutrality pertains to an article conveying all the possible viewpoints on a topic. That is, being “neutral” entails that the reader should not be influenced to take a particular stance on an issue, but rather, understand the various approaches to a subject matter. Obtaining a holistic understanding of a topic is the central dogma of Wikipedia’s definition of neutrality. To my general understanding, this is a fair interpretation of neutrality, as my outlook on being “neutral” involves the impartiality and unbiased nature of ideas, which is what Wikipedia articles undoubtedly aim for.
• What are the impacts and limits of Wikipedia as a source of information?
  • Wikipedia allows the general populace to be informed of key issues and themes that may not be addressed anywhere else. This is accomplished as people of all varieties contribute to articles that aid others in understanding a myriad of subjects. A natural consequence of this is that Wikipedia articles are subject to the interpretations of reliable sources. Therefore, Wikipedia’s functionality as a revenue of information is bound by the analysis of sources by the public. While the amalgamation of thoughts that these writers contribute to in this pool of information is abundant in content, it is limited by the very viewpoints of these people.
• 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?
  • Textbooks and journal articles are reliable sources of information because they are not user-generated and do not give a false holistic view, unlike blogs and self-published articles. Instead, these sources are purely factual. However, when writing about more contemporary issues, it is often difficult to find reliable sources. Getting published is not a quick process; therefore, most information on recent issues are derived from unreliable sources.
• If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, how might its content (and contributors) be different? What about 100 years from now?
  • If Wikipedia were written 100 years ago, its content would be harder to access. An editor would have to look through hundreds of books to find the perfect quote. We now have access to the internet, which reduces our searching time. It is easier to distribute information now with the use of the internet, but 100 years ago, it would still be quite difficult even with the use of the printing press. However, there will undoubtedly be better and faster technology 100 years from now. Information will readily be put to use and the people writing on Wikipedia will most likely be better equipped to write on things that pertain to their article. Also, there will be other outlets of information available that are not yet imaginable.

Week 6: Expand your draft

No structural changes need to be made to the article. The article is arranged in a chronological order. Little to no grammatical errors are present. The syntax needed revision in the case of run-on sentences, which was done in week 3. The following information includes small details that I think would help the overall understanding of Bertrand's character, along with the flow of the article.

Early life

He would later earn a spot in the Council of Five Hundred alongside the very men who discarded any notion of accepting Bertrand Barére as a member. Despite Jean-Pierre's disengagement from any revolutionary matters, he was still condemned as a rebellious representative.

Thermidor, prison, and later life

The men who helped Barére escape prison were his cousin, Hector Barére, and a young man. Barére refused to reveal the name of the latter in fear that he would be executed. Although Bertrand Barére was reluctant to escape, his two friends believed that he should leave at the earliest opportunity. The original plan was to escape over the garden walls or from the dormitory with the help of a long rope-ladder. This plan soon proved impossible as it was discovered that the garden was out of Barére's reach and that the dormitory was closed. The escape plan was soon reconfigured, as it was decided that Barére would escape by the cloister and garden of the convent.