User:Fmwaziri/sandbox


 * 1) I believe a content gap is when information is not substantial. The information on the wikipedia page does not have much content making the article weak or even useless. I believe the ways to identify a content gap is by reading other articles about the topic or even doing more research about it. If you see there are errors or misleading information then you can or even change the information.
 * 2) A content gap may arise when a person is trying to get information about that certain topic. They might feel like the information they are obtaining is false or not sufficient enough for them. I believe the best way to remedy this is by reporting this page or making the page as "unfinished" thus other people can come and try to fix the errors and try adding more information on the page
 * 3) In my knowledge, It does not matter who writes on wikipedia. The individuals who do write on wikipedia need to be respectful to others and other peoples work. If they see something is wrong then they must talk in a chat and try to tell them where they went wrong by proving facts to them.
 * 4) Being unbiased on wikipedia means that you do not write things in your own favor. For instance you are talking about last years Super Bowl and you are writing an article about it, you can't favor one team and not the other. You can't say one team got "lucky" and the other team didn't. You need to make sure that the information you are providing are facts and not stuff from the top of your head.

Article Evaluation:
 * 1) After going over "Evaluating Articles and Sources" training, I learned that wikipedia takes each and every article very seriously. Wikipedia does not want articles that don't have credible sources or even the right sources. Each article is given a grade based on it's credibility. The articles have to have the right amount of citations and they can not be biases either. Wikipedia also respects each member who makes contributions to the pages. If members disagree with the facts that were written on the page, they gave a "Talk" button where you can talk to other editors and provide them with information on why you made such changes and etc.
 * 2) After going over the many articles our professor provided us with. It seemed to me that these articles are still unfinished and they need a lot of citations as well. The articles seem to do a good job by giving us information on the topic but these articles seem to be missing the credible sources. We don't know where and how these people got there information from. Thus more work is going to be needed to make these articles look much better. I tried a few citations on the articles and some of them didn't even work. Some say they are restricted from showing us the information and others work. I would say overall the information on these articles are relevant to the topic but sometimes it does go off topic making it very boring to read. The authors need to intertwine everything so that the audience doesn't get bored reading it.