User:DDenord/sandbox

= Le Sandbox =

Week 2: 1/22-1/28
Essential plan:

- Work on Maury article to the best of my ability and edit a few psychology articles if time permits. The goal is to work on Wikipedia and share my knowledge as much as I can. :-)

Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information. Why?
Blog posts and press releases are considered to be poor sources of reliable information due to the potentially biased nature. Many times, press releases or materials are intended to show certain topics in a particular light, positive or not. Blog posts, on the other hand are rarely sans opinion, and because of this, they wouldn't be appropriate to use for a citation in a Wiki Article. Blogs tend to be biased and Wiki Articles are supposed to be serious secondary sources, and a biased piece would not be useful in that case.

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

 * Some reasons to not use a company's website as the main source of information about a company are:
 * The website is obviously shaped to place the company in the best light possible
 * The website may not have a well rounded view of the company or it's beliefs/morals
 * There may be scandal associated with the company that will most likely not be on the website The website of the company will always be biased towards the company, and because of this bias, it is best that the website for said company not be used.

What is the difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism?

 * A copyright violation is basically when you use something or cite a source that is not explicitly allowed to be shared. This means that the information can not be transmitted without proper permissions, and if this is done, then there is a violation of copyright. Plagiarism is when someone uses someone else's work with or without citing it. There are three types of plagiarism:
 * Unattributed
 * Unattributed plagiarism occurs when text is copied and the the author is not credited
 * Plagiarism of cited sources
 * Plagiarism of cited sources is when text is exactly copied and the author may or may not be credited or cited.
 * Close paraphrasing
 * This is where the text is slightly changed the text of someone else, whether or not it is cited.

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

 * Some good techniques to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism are
 * Reading the text more than once, underlining the points that you might want to use in your article
 * Read more than one source
 * Try your best to clearly be able to understand the topic
 * Try to even teach it to someone else
 * Check and check and check again, just to be sure that you've used your own words
 * ALWAYS REMEMBER TO CITE!!! :)

Choosing a Topic

 * Main Article: Jean-Sifrein Maury
 * This article makes the most sense for me to tackle primarily because this is my character for the game.
 * The Maury article is lacking- it has some information in it, but I believe that it could be just as well developed as other articles on Wiki. The article could be spruced up a bit, and it seems as though it isn't worked on as much as it could be. To me, Maury is a quite fascinating man who found himself in an epic conundrum: God or man? Should his allegiance rest with his land, which he loves, or with God, who he's dedicated his entire life to? I'm glad I got Maury because it gave me a chance to brush up on my oratorical as well a persuasive skill set, and it's also caused me to delve deep into a lot of research about the man. The article definitely is lacking in information, and hopefully, I can give Cardinal Maury the wiki page he deserves.

Plan for the Maury Article
Although the information on Maury tends to be difficult to find and quite scarce, I plan to use [POUJOULAT, Le Cardinal Maury: sa Vie et ses Oeuvres (Paris, 1855)] in order to get the most information possible about the Cardinal. I also plan to try to add more about the Cardinal's role in the French National Assembly, as well as hopefully find some more information on the Cardinal as a religious man. I will do my best to try to discuss the reasoning behind some of the topics that Maury spoke about if I can get access to some of the French Historical Archives.

Bibliography that will be used to supplement the article
** Not in APA format

Scannell, T. (1911). Jean-Siffrein Maury. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.Retrieved February 19, 2017 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10072c.htm

Poujoulat, Le Cardinal Maury: sa Vie et ses Oeuvres (Paris, 1855)

IDEM, Correspondance Diplomatique et Mémoires inedits du Cardinal Maury, 1792-1817 (Lille, 1891)

Beik, P. H. (1951). Abbé Maury and the National Assembly. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 546-555.

Maury, J. S. (1891). Correspondance diplomatique et mémoires inédits du Cardinal Maury: 1792-1817. Desclée de Brouwer.

Maury, J. S. (1829). Essai sur l'éloquence de la chaire, panégyriques, éloges et discours.

Maury, J. S. (1804). Principes d'éloquence pour la chaire & le barreau. Theodore Warée.

Maury, J. S. (1791). Esprit, pensées et maximes de M. L'abbé Maury, député à l'Assemblée Nationale. chez Cuchet.

Notes for Improvement on the Maury article
I don't really want to describe the article as lackadaisical, but I see that it can definitely be improved. There is a good amount of biographical information on the subject, but not enough information on Maury not only as a religious cardinal, but as a member of the Assemble Nationale. There is so much more to be done in that arena. Maury was a very well spoken man, and there are more than a few sources (see above) that can attest to his brilliance as a speaker in the Assembly.

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

What do you think of Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality"?
Wikipedia makes it an extremely important point to remain neutral. I think that the devotion to neutrality is important, especially when Wikipedia should be considered a serious secondary or tertiary source. Wikipedia's definition of neutrality holds that articles should not be biased, and that the sole job of Wikipedia is to share facts- not persuade. People can then take the facts that they get from Wikipedia and interpret the information based on their needs.

What are the impacts and limits of Wikipedia as a source of information?
Although in most academic capacities Wikipedia is not considered a legitimate source of information, Wikipedia finds itself being used by people all over the globe as an important source of information. Wikipedia is currently seen as an appropriate source for low stakes research, but for serious, high stakes writing, Wikipedia is not seen as an apt reference. For this reason, Wikipedia is quite limited and limiting as a source of information, primarily because anyone can be a contributor on Wikipedia. This has an impact on not only students, but also on other members of the academic community who would like to actually contribute and use Wikipedia as a secondary or tertiary source.

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?
The one rule Wikipedia does make sure that its contributors follow is that all published content be attributed to reliable resources. This excludes any material that can't be considered unbiased, such as blog posts, information that tries to show a particular point of view, and anything that displays an opinion. Information on Wikipedia should be factual, and because these sources aren't factual, reliable sources, information from these can be misconstrued and misused.

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, the content would not only be extremely different due to the vast difference in human interests nowadays, but the ideals and thoughts of contributors would have been extremely different as well. 100 years ago, people not only thought differently, but the interests that they held were so completely different than what we look at today. Where most people today would easily lookup an article on a famous celebrity or on some random topic, access to those topics in the 1910s were extremely limited. This was at the beginning of the time where people finally had time for leisure, so the last thing on someone's mind at the time would be to look up a character. Content would probably be geared towards academia, and maybe- just maybe- some art. Where almost anyone willing to research can contribute to Wikipedia today, I believe that Wikipedia 100 years ago would have been edited by people with serious credentials, and people who have conducted extreme research. If Wikipedia was written 100 years from now, I believe that it would be filled with so much more information, and it would probably be even more diverse than it is now. Contributions would be pouring in from anywhere and everywhere with content that would land across a spectrum.

Early childhood to early success
The son of a very poor cobbler, he was born on at Valréas in the Comtat-Venaissin, the enclave within France that belonged to the pope. His acuteness was observed by the priests of the seminary at Avignon, where he was educated and took orders. He tried his fortune by writing éloges of famous persons, then a favorite practice; in 1771, his Élogeon Fénelon was pronounced by the French Academy as second only to that by La Harpe.

The real foundation of his fortunes was the success of a panegyric on Saint Louis delivered before the Académie française in 1772, which caused him to be recommended for an abbacy in commendam. In 1777 he published under the title of Discours choisis his panegyrics on Saint Louis, Saint Augustine and Fénelon, his remarks on Bossuet and his Essai sur l'éloquence de la chaire, a volume which contains much good criticism, and remained a French classic through the nineteenth century, as long as elegant rhetoric was valued in the pulpit. The book was often reprinted as Principes de l'éloquence. He became a favorite preacher in Paris, and was Lent preacher at court in 1781, when King Louis XVI said of his sermon: "If the abbé had said only a few words on religion, he would have discussed every possible subject."

Becoming a priest
STILL READING (UGH is all I can say at this point.)

Role in the National Assembly
In 1781, he obtained the rich priory of Lyons, near Pronne; and in 1785 he was elected to the Académie française as Lefranc de Pompignan's successor. His morals were as loose as those of his great rival Mirabeau, but he was famed in Paris for his wit and gaiety. He was elected a member of the Estates-General of 1789 by the clergy of the bailliage of Péronne, proving from the first to be the most able and persevering defender of the ancien régime. (He had, nonetheless, drawn up the greater part of the cahier of the clergy of Péronne which contained a considerable programme of reform.) ''It is said that he attempted to emigrate both in July and in October 1789, but after that time, deserted by nearly all his friends, he decided to remain in France. (Add in info about why he wanted to flee in 1789 and hyperlink to the article).''

In the National Constituent Assembly he took an active part in every important debate, combating with especial vigour the alienation of the property of the clergy. His life was often in danger, but his ready wit always saved it and it was said that one bon mot would preserve him for a month. When he did emigrate in 1792, he found himself regarded as a martyr to the church and the king, and was at once named archbishop in partibus; extra nuncio to the diet at Frankfort; and, in 1794, cardinal. He was finally made bishop of Montefiascone in Italy, where he settled down briefly, but in 1798 the French drove him from his retreat, and he sought refuge in Venice and St. Petersburg.