User:IMZ Editor/sandbox

'''bold'''

[[bold]]

[[boldness | bold]]

Week 2 Questions

Content Gap Questions

1. I think a content gap is when an article is missing a significant amount of information that belongs somewhere in the middle of the article. This would be different than a topic that is just missing new information that would go at the end of the article. Some possible ways of identifying this would be a gap in the time line of a topic.

2. A content gap might arise if the topic is not being documented or not in the public eye during a period of time. Some ways to remedy this is to look for any private, unpublished source on the topic during this missing gap in time. This could be someone's personal journal. Another method to remedy this is to go directly to the topic and try to get information from the source.

3. It does matter who writes Wikipedia. We need it to be people who will write unbiased information using trusted and reliable sources. This will allow Wikipedia to be seen as an accurate encyclopedia.

4. To be unbiased is to show all perspectives and viewpoints on a topic so that the reader can be presented with all of the facts on the matter. Then the reader can make their own opinions on the topic rather than being persuaded to one side. This is similar to my definition of bias, since being biased is being aligned to one side of a topic or argument.

Week 4 Questions

Thinking about sources and plagiarism

1. Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information. Why?

Blog posts and press releases are poor sources because they are typically not released by reliable publishers who spend a lot of time checking their facts and confirming that they are 100 percent the truth. These types of sources are also known for lacking a neutral point of view when covering topics. They may be biased on the topic and make one side of the story seem more favorable than the other. They may share their author's thoughts and opinions on the matter in order to persuade the readers to think a certain way. Most importantly, they may lack a general consensus on the topic by leaving out information they don't deem important or necessary. This means that the reader doesn't have all the information they need to draw a valid conclusion on their own.

2. What are some reasons you might not want to use a company's website as the main source of information about that company?

You want to avoid using a source that is directly related to the subject because it will most likely be biased in favor of itself. In this case, the company is going to try and make itself look as good as possible on their own website. They will highlight all of their achievements and everything positive about the company, while potentially leaving out anything negative associated with the company. They will avoid posting bad things about their company because it could negatively hurt their business. Independent sources are better to use because they have no stakes in the topic. They will give you all the facts because it doesn't affect them negatively or positively.

3. What is the difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism?

A copyright violation is when you use copyrighted material as a source to add information on Wikipedia or any other platform. Copyrighted material is protect and not available for free use. This means that you can't use this material even if you properly cite it and give credit to the author. Published works can only be used if they are released under a free license or if they are so old that the copyright has worn off and is no longer valid. On the other hand, plagiarism is achieved when you take your free to use source and directly copy it in some capacity. The most obvious case includes copying the words directly without quoting or giving proper citations. However, it is also considered plagiarism if you copy phrases or even the word structure of your source.

4. What are some good techniques to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism?

A good method for compiling information without close paraphrasing or plagiarising is to gather information from a wide array of reputable, reliable sources. You should make sure to read the sources over and over until you get a good understanding of the topic. While you're reading, take thorough notes in your own words. Finally, use these notes to write down and publish the information so that everything is in your own words and not closely mimicking or completely copying the words from your source.

Choosing possible topics

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Léon

I chose this as a topic because I am playing as Pauline Léon in the class. I have to do research on her in order to do well in the game, so I already have a decent amount of information that can be used to add and contribute on Wikipedia. Her Wikipedia page has very little information and only a few sources, which presents me with the opportunity to make a significant addition that can help millions of viewers around the world. I want to add to this topic because her story deserves to be heard. Pauline was an average French citizen who took action and made her voice be heard during the French Revolution. It is amazing how average citizens were able to have such a huge impact on a significant movement such as the French Revolution.

The talk page for this topic is barren and not active. There are no posts in the talk page. The last time this page was even edited was back in November 11, 2012. This means that no other Wikipedian is currently working on improving this page. This is good because I will be able to freely add my information without having it removed or opposed by someone. This is bad because I won't have anybody's immediate opinion and support; someone who I could brainstorm with and bounce ideas off of.

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Revolutionary_Republican_Women

I chose this topic because Pauline Léon played a huge role in this group. I like that this article already has a good number of sub-sections that clearly covers the different aspects of the topic. There seems to be a good amount of solid information; however, it looks like it can be improved upon. There is also a prominent members section, which includes Pauline Léon, that I would like to elaborate on. I want to show what roles these prominent members had in this society as well as the time period of their involvement. I don't have any research on the topic, so I must see if there is enough reputable sources to make up any valuable addition to the article.

The talk page for this topic is also barren and inactive. There are no posts in the talk page. The last time this page was edited was back in October 20, 2011. This once again means that I won't have any fellow Wikipedians to collaborate with. I am not going to get any direct feedback or criticize that could help propel my work to the next level.

Week 5 Questions

Finalize topic / Find sources

My chosen topic is the Pauline Léon wikipedia page.

This is what I plan on contributing to the article.

1. I want to add a sufficient lead section that introduces Pauline Léon's origins. It will also introduce and briefly describe the important events Léon participated in or the groups she was apart of.
2. I want to divide the article into distinct sections with their own topics such as early life.
3. I want to add some images.
4. I want to add the information box that usually contains key information such as birth and death date. This will go on the top right of the article, just like all the other Wikipedia pages.
5. I want to add brief but informative descriptions for all the named groups and people brought up throughout the article.
6. I want to go more in-depth and talk about the role Léon had in the various groups mentioned throughout the article. For example, there should definitely be more information on the Society of Revolutionary Republican Women because she co-founded it.
7. I want to add a different type of references section that is organized by subscripts and corresponds to a specific piece of text in the article. This way, viewers will be able to tell where a certain piece of information was taken from.
8. I want to add an external links section that could contain links to pieces she wrote or petitions she signed.
9. I want to add more information on Léon's early life. This may show viewers what events encouraged her to stand up for herself and participate in the French Revolution.
10. I want to add more information about Léon's activity in the French Revolution. This should show viewers how much of an impact an average French citizen had on the revolution.
11. I want to add more information about how Léon lived out her life after the events of the French Revolution.

Creating a new article?

Sources:

1. Moore, Lucy. Liberty: the Lives and Times of Six Women in Revolutionary France. New York, Harper Perennial, 2008.
2. Godineau, Dominique. The Women of Paris and Their French Revolution. Berkeley, University of California Press, 1998.

Draft

Lead Section

Pauline Léon (September 28, 1768 - October 5, 1838), was a radical organizer and feminist during the French Revolution. From current article. I didn't edit much.

>

Early Personal Life

Léon was born to chocolate makers Pierre-Paul Léon and Mathrine Telohan in Paris on September 28, 1768. Léon is one of six children. Her father died in 1784, after which time Léon helped her mother with the chocolate business in exchange for free room and board. She was also responsible for helping to raise and support her siblings. It is believed that she became a political radical after witnessing the execution of leaders of a bread riot. From current article. I didn't edit much.

• Her father is the one who taught her how to read and write.

Role in the French Revolution

On March 6, 1792, she addressed the Legislative Assembly on behalf of Parisian women, suggesting that a female militia be formed so that women could protect their homes from counter-revolutionary assaults. In July 1791 she signed the petition at the Champ de Mars. Léon was a founder of the Society of Revolutionary Republican Women (Société des Républicaines-Révolutionnaires) along with Claire Lacombe and became its president on July 9, 1793. Léon and Lacombe both held strong hatred towards Lafayette, mostly due to his wartime opinions and actions. The Société only lasted for about a year before authorities shut it down. She was also a leader of the Femmes Sans-Culottes in 1793. She also was a frequenter of the Cordeliers Club. At age 29, she married Théophile Leclerc, the leader of the enragés. They would later be arrested together, but held separately in the Luxembourg prison from April to August, 1794. From current article. I made a few edits.

• I moved the last sentence to the middle of the paragraph.

Life after the Revolution

Little is known about Léon's later life. She died at home in Bourbon-Vendée on October 5, 1838. From current article. I didn't edit much.

References

• Include specific in-text citations from sources here

Works Cited

• Just list all of the sources used throughout the article

>

Additional Notes

• Italicized and underlined text is what I have changed from the current Wikipedia article
• Can't find any images for Pauline Leon
• One of my sources, the book about six women, doesn't provide a picture of Pauline Leon and states that one doesn't exist.

Improving an existing article?

Here is a list of what's missing from the current form of the article:

1. It doesn't have a sufficient lead section that introduces Pauline Léon's origins and key events and contributions throughout her life. Simply adding more information here will help improve this aspect of the article.
2. It doesn't have dedicated sections to divide up Léon's life into appropriate time periods.
3. It doesn't have any images.
4. It doesn't have the informational box, usually found on the right side of the page, that contains key information such as birth and death date.
5. It doesn't have any additional descriptions or information on the various groups Léon was apart of. There should definitely be more information on the society that she co-founded.
6. It doesn't have an external links section, which could contain a link to something she wrote or a speech she gave.
7. None of the references are assigned a subscript that directly refers to a cited section in the article. They are all just general sources, so we don't know where information in the article was gathered from.

Week 6 Questions

Thinking about Wikipedia

1. What do you think of Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality"?

Wikipedia’s definition of neutrality is straightforward and what you would expect something neutral to mean. They make their definition of neutrality simple and easy to understand because they want us editors to be neutral when writing articles on their website. Basically, Wikipedia just wants to be an encyclopedia where people around the world can come for facts and reliable information on a wide array of topics. They don’t want the information on their websites to be biased towards any one side of a topic. They also want to avoid having the editors write in an essay format and attempt to persuade the reader in a specific direction. Wikipedia just wants to present all the major and minor details of a topic and allow the reader to make their own opinion based on what they have read.    

2. What are the impacts and limits of Wikipedia as a source of information? 

Wikipedia is an impactful source of information because it is such a large collection of useful facts. Wikipedia contains information on a wide range of topics that should meet the interests of a typical reader. Also, these articles are usually well developed because they are created by people interested in the topic. In addition, all of this information can easily and quickly be viewed as long as you have an internet connection. People all around the world can now confidently look up information at any time of the day.

A limit of Wikipedia could be its strict policy on what type of sources can be used to gather information for the website. For example, Wikipedia avoids using sources directly related to the subject because the information might be biased. However, for a small company, this might be the only source of information on the topic. Therefore, Wikipedia won’t be able to present information on this company until a reliable, neutral author publishes information on the company.

Another limit is that anyone can edit a Wikipedia page. This means that there is a risk of false information being published on the website. And this false information is visible to the public until someone notices and removes it. Also, editing wars can occur between individuals when they disagree on what should go on a Wikipedia article.

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?

Sources that are considered unreliable by Wikipedia include blog posts, press releases, self-published works, or sources directly related to the subject. Basically, these types of sources are more likely to push an agenda or a certain viewpoint and Wikipedia doesn’t want to influence their readers in any way. The problem this creates is that it limits the amount of sources that can be used on Wikipedia articles, which in turn, makes it more difficult to find sources. We are also missing out on information that could very well be true and useful for the readers.    

4. If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, how might its content (and contributors) be different? What about 100 years from now?

If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, its information wouldn’t be as vast or in-depth as it is today. This would be due to the fact that it would be harder to acquire reliable, neutral sources. Today’s advancements in technology and communication allow for the fast spread of information on a global scale. Information can quickly be gathered after a few minutes on the Internet. You can be in Miami and call someone in Japan to ask them for details about a recent Tsunami straight from the source. Information just wouldn’t have been able to flow as quickly 100 years ago. In saying this, I assume that it will be a lot easier to gather information 100 years in the future. Wikipedia will probably have information on nearly any topic you could think of.