User:Emmy0286

Notes related to Wikipedia work and activities
Week 2-Content gaps

Content gaps refer to missing additional information on a certain topic. Or further description of something that was listed in an article. Content gaps can be identified by just reading content, and if the content feels incomplete or if you have question after reading a sentence or paragraph, there might be a content gap. There has not been an entry yet for the Engineering Economist’s journal. This is different from a content gap because the journal does not exist at all. About 1000 articles refer to the page. Content gaps might arise if the writer thinks some information is unimportant or if the writer does not find enough sources for the topic. Content gaps can be solved through extensive research on the topic you plan to write on. Also reviewing your article and reading it making sure, all necessary explanations and descriptions are covered in the article. It does not matter who rights Wikipedia according to what I have read. Civil Engineers should write articles because they will have more access to resources and information in their field than any other person of a different profession. Unbiased means that what the writer is writing it displays neutrality. This is similar to my definition of bias which is taking a side when writing an article.

Recommendations on creating an article in Wiki.

In order to create a good wiki article on the journal, one needs to first understand the relationship between engineering and  economics. When citing sources the author should avoid close paraphrasing, and instead use their own words for information they might have obtained from other sources. At the same time they should not forget to cite sources properly. For obtaining information, the writer should avoid using the primary source or using their own research as well. When writing an article, neutrality should be maintained and should not take a side. However, if own research is used, there are high chances the article will be biased.

Work in progress
Improving Wellington's article (Week 5)

Looking at the Wellington's article in week 5 there a a couple of descriptions that are missing from the article.For example under the subheading surveyor and locating engineer.The section just lists the jobs he moved from but does not get too in detail.What is also missing from the article, is the background of Wellington and Henck's relationship.

I felt that the article did not do much of a great job in establishing Wellington's key role in developing Engineering Economics.His role in Engineering economics was briefly mentioned, however the article did not dwell much on how important he was to the role of Engineering Economics.The article focused on other works that he did which were not described in detail as well.

From the list of articles in, an article that can be used is the one about Henck. It provides a brief background between Henck and Wellington hence helps to establish why Wellington decided to write the The Economic Theory of the Location of Railways.

To improve the article on Wellington, it is worth fixing a couple of grammatical errors that are there.In order to fix the article as well it is better to explain in detail Wellington's works rather than just mentioning that he was," He was the editor of The Engineering News".I think more information should be added to that, for example when was he the editor, how did he become the editor etc.

Impacts and limits of Wikipedia as a source of information (Week 6).

I think Wikipedia's definition of neutrality is making sure that one does not use their own opinion in the article they will be working on.According to Wikipedia, choosing a side of an argument when writing an article will lead to a biased article as the readers will not get the facts but rather what the reader wants them to know about the article.The Wikipedia's NOR rule is makes sense because when you do research, it is usually towards a specific topic, hence if you use research you did, you are inclined towards picking a certain side when writing the article.

Sources that are deemed unreliable for Wikipedia (Week 6).

Sources that are excluded form Wikipedia's reliable published sources are blogs, and press materials.Using these sources may create problems such as a biased article which lacks facts.A blog post is based on people's opinions, what they think, what they assume and what they believe in.There is no neutrality in a blog post as everyone would be trying to get their opinion across to the audience.Press materials can be deemed as unreliable because they are usually written to show something in a certain light.They do not hold neutrality at all hence using them in an article will lead to a very biased article which lacks the real truth of the topic.

How would Wikipedia be different 100 years back and 100 years from now?(Week 6)

I think should Wikipedia have been present 100 years ago, there would be so much knowledge that we know today.There are some articles which I feel would have had more information should they have been written a 100 years ago.A century later we are now only writing articles based on research, and studies that are done which at times can not find all the answers.However, should Wikipedia have been present, information would have been documented in the present time and I believe, there would be more facts than what we have today.

I think Wikipedia in a 100 years from now will have more information than it does today due to technological advancement and different changes that might come by as the years pass.I think a Wikipedia platform would still remain relevant as most people really want to know the history behind everything and the explanations of how humanity maybe, got to where they are.