User:Bryankwiat

Content Gap
I believe that the content gap is a particular subject's absence from the Wikipedia body of knowledge. Some ways to identify a content gap include the absence of a topic within Wikipedia, as well as a limited amount of writing with regard to a certain topic. There isn't much written about the topic and there are few referenced articles. The Engineering Economist page does not exist, though it is referenced in two Wikipedia articles. This represents a good example of a content gap. I think that the primary reason a content gap arises is due to a lack of interest in writing an article on a topic by either experts in the subject or by those who may be interested in it. An article written about a topic by an expert in that topic is valuable, though an article written by a non-expert who has extensively researched the topic may also be of good quality. The reason this is the case is because an expert's article may unnecessarily contain their own bias with regard to the subject, where as an outsider will not contain this inherent bias.

William H. Emory
Overall, I would say that this is a very well-written article. There are plenty of articles provided for further reading, but there aren't that many references. One passage in particular that I think could use a reference is the sentence regarding his skill as a topographic engineer and explorer. The sentence reads, "His mapmaking skills were so superb and detailed with such great accuracy that he often made other maps obsolete." This is quite a profound statement, but does not contain a reference supporting it. I think that the addition of a reference would allow for the sentence to remain unchanged, though without the reference, it would be hard to support this claim. The sentence, therefore, should read, "He was known for creating detailed and accurate maps, which were used by many in lieu of those that had been used up to that time."

Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information. Why?
Blog posts and press releases purvey the specific perspective of the one who wrote them. Therefore, the information contained in these documents can not be trusted to be neutral in nature and should not be used as a source for a Wikipedia article.

What are some reasons you might not want to use a company's website as a main source of information about that company?
The information presented on a company's website will be specifically chosen to highlight all of the positives about that company. For example, if an oil shipping company happened to have an accident where it spilled a tremendous amount of oil into the ocean, this information probably wouldn't be on the company's website or the entire course of events leading to this disaster wouldn't be presented. In other words, a company's website does not represent a neutral perspective and should be avoided as a main source of information.

What is the difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism?
A copyright violation is when someone uses material owned by a company for their own purposes without the explicit permission from that company. An example would be using the NYU logo on a self-printed t-shirt without paying the University for using it. Plagiarism occurs when someone tries to pass off another's ideas or writing off as their own.

What does public domain mean?
Public domain means that something is available for the use by anyone who wants to use it for any purpose they can think of.

What does fair use mean?
Fair use means using another's property in a way that is considered to be fair with regard to the owner. For example, if I purchase a music album from an artist, me listening to it is fair use. Distributing copies of the album to my friends for free is not.

What are some good techniques to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism?
If there is a quote or idea that you would like to use in a Wikipedia article or research report, it is best to rewrite the quote or idea in your own words without using the same structure. It is possible to summarize the quote or idea, which often shortens its length and requires a certain level of understanding that is necessary to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism.

Copying text from other sources?
Citing a source and copying text from a source are two distinct actions. This goes hand in hand with the idea expressed in the previous section. It is expected that information in Wikipedia articles and research reports will come from some other first hand reference, but the words have to come from the writer. Credit must be given to the source of the original information, which is called a citation.

Neutrality and No Original Research from a Non-Technical Perspective
From the perspective of a non-technical general reader, it might be difficult to discern whether the contents of a civil engineering article presents a neutral perspective or stems from another's original research. They do not know about the intricacies of the subject and as a result assume that what they are reading is both true, substantiated, and neutral. Of course, it is the reader's responsibility to identify the sources of the information being presented, but they might not be able to determine the validity of the citation as a viable source. For example, it is not neutral for a company to post information on a Wikipedia page from their own website as this does not represent a neutral source. If Wikipedia were written 100 years ago, it might have been more difficult to determine if a cited article contained original, peer-reviewed information as the access to this information was much more difficult. 100 years in the future, Wikipedia may no longer be relevant being that the access to information has grown exponentially. If this trend continues, everyone would potentially have access to almost all information contained on the internet and could use this advantage to understand topics for themselves. Also, with the development of artificial intelligence, software may be developed that can create summaries of the vast sums of knowledge almost instantly, effectively creating "made to order Wikipedia pages" at the request of the consumer.

Neutrality and No Original Research from a Civil Engineer's Perspective
From the perspective of an experienced engineer, they are able to determine the neutrality and the original research from which Wikipedia articles are written. They may not have conducted the same type of research for themselves, but based on their own experience, they will be able to determine whether objectivity has remained intact. 100 years ago, as stated previously, it would be much easier for article writers to deceive their audience. As time progress and technology evolves, this practice will become much more difficult to do. Therefore, I hypothesize that the Wikipedia platform will no longer remain relevant in lieu of unbiased computer sources conducting the research in writer's place.