User:GlossomathisRabbit/sandbox

This sandbox contains my discussion responses.

What do you think of Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality"?
I think Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality" is appropriate for the kind of work that Wikipedia is. As an encyclopedia, it is important that facts are stated and that readers are allowed to draw their own conclusions and opinions from the facts that are presented. I appreciate that Wikipedia has also addressed the potential for a definition of "neutrality" without nuance to be abused, and that they have suggested viewpoints are presented with their relative prominence.

What are the impacts and limits of Wikipedia as a source of information?
Wikipedia is a popular platform and can be where people first check to get information about a certain topic. In fact, if one were to ask Siri about a subject, the assistant often pulls Wikipedia up first. Hence, Wikipedia can have a great impact as a source of information, and it is important for Wikipedia to not proselytize so that to the best of the editors' abilities, the information is objective and reliable. There are, however, limits to Wikipedia as a source of information. One limit is academic detail. By the nature of what Wikipedia is, articles are summaries of discoveries and viewpoints published by reputable sources; there may be details that are lost in Wikipedia that would appear in academic journals. Furthermore, Wikipedia is editable by anyone. This can allow for checks and balances as well as for diverse perspectives to be presented, but it also means that Wikipedia articles are always in a state of flux and cannot be cited in papers directly, as a citation in the article might change. Lastly, Wikipedia might have content gaps. Editors for an article might not have had the knowledge to address a certain perspective or fill in the gaps, and, as with any source, it would be important to ask where a Wikipedia article's information came from.

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?
This excludes sources that are self-published, sponsored, or not reviewed. Self-published works are likely to reflect the opinions and biases of the author, and there may not be editorial oversight. Sponsored works have a financial incentive to present the subject in a certain light and also may not be subject to the same type of review process. Lastly, it is important for sources to undergo a reliable review process that fact-checks the work and ensures that the research within the source is thorough. The potential problem, however, is that "reliable" and "published" depends on whether the reviewers think it is worth publishing. This could lead to censorship, if thoroughly researched and sound articles are denied publication because it presents an unpopular conclusion in the eyes of the reviewers. This could also lead to the opposite, where less-than-sound articles are published because it presents a popular conclusion. As such, it is important, when citing sources on Wikipedia, that the content creators' backgrounds are examined for biases.

If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, how might its content (and contributors) be different? What about 100 years from now?
If Wikipedia were written 100 years ago, the content and contributors might reflect the societal group that held power because of their predominance in the media and academic industries and because of their likely easier access to editing and managing Wikipedia. Social movements that made major milestones within these past 100 years might have been considered insignificant minority viewpoints that shouldn't be given due credit. Over time, language also evolves. As such, language that might have been perceived by the majority group as neutral at the time might now be considered judgmental. Knowing this, it allows us to keep perspective of the way we describe things now. In 100 years, Wikipedia editors might be more diverse, with many different backgrounds and experiences reflected, and they may look back to editors now and identify ways in which we reflect a societal group that holds power. Articles 100 years from now might talk about our current events in a new light, with the ability to identify impacts, across different fields, through a more distanced lens, and perhaps currently considered minority viewpoints will become more prominent in the future.

Citation Differences Addendum
This week, I noticed as I was editing Wikipedia articles that the citations came before the punctuation. It's a small thing, but it seems in English Wikipedia, a citation at the end of a sentence would be placed after the period. In French Wikipedia, though, many of the articles I read placed the citation before the period. I also noticed that in the reference section, there was an insertable model for articles that were translated so that the original language's article could be properly cited.

What are some reasons you might not want to use a company's website as the main source of information about that company?
One reason for which we would not want to rely on a company's website as the main source of information about that company is its bias and unreliability. The company would likely present itself in a positive light. It might do so by managing the types of information presented, such as highlighting achievements and/or hiding faults. It can also do that by using words with positive connotations. Furthermore, Wikipedia asks that articles be about topics with notability. A company is not a reliable source for gauging its impact on society. Notability is best denoted by coverage from secondary sources that don't have a vested interest in the promotion of the company.

What is the difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism?
The difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism is that in a copyright violation, a copyright owner's work is reproduced or distributed with or without attribution but, in either case, without the owner's permission, whereas in plagiarism, the ideas of a work are presented without attribution, even if copyright law does not apply.

What are some good techniques to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism within a translated article?
Some good techniques would include taking notes on the sources and summarizing the notes afterwards in one's own words. Across different languages, I also find it helpful to take summary notes in a language different from the source. Indirect translation forces one to distill notes down to the main point. In the process, grammatical structure and conventions, which can vary between languages, are largely lost, and the words are more likely to be one's own. For instance, in French, a source might say "Tout au long de son recherche, Dr. XYZ s'est servie du jus d'orange, une boisson que ses camarades adoraient tellement, pour qu'elle puisse se sentir à l'aise." but when taking notes in English, the note might look like "Dr. XYZ used orange juice to feel calm during her research."

What are a few differences you notice between English citations and the citations in your assigned language?
I noticed the inclusion of (en) before an English citation in a French Wikipedia article. It also appears as if French Wikipedia distinguishes between different major standard varieties of English when possible; some citations were preceded by (en-GB) for the Great Britain variety of standard English while some others were marked as (en-US) for standard English used in the United States. French article citations that were in English appeared in the form (en) «Article name hyperlinked», Journal or Website, date of publication (consulté on this date). Unlike the English Wikipedia citations, both date of publication and date of retrieval appear at the end. Commas are also more acceptable, as opposed to periods, to separate different items, and following French syntactical convention, «» are used as quotation marks.

Does the article read as well in your assigned language as it does in English?
The article is overall understandable, but it is not as fluid to read as it is in English. The article includes errors and sentence structures that can be distracting. Some of these are mistranslations, overuse of a certain word, missed declensions, or semantic or syntactical differences between English and French (for instance, “information" is often treated like a singular noun in English, whereas French often treats it as the plural noun “informations”).

Are key concepts and terms expressed as well as in the version in your assigned language as they are in English?
Key concepts and terms are not expressed as well in French as they are in English. There are some mistranslations, such as the use of “l’intimité”, literally translated to “intimacy”, for “privacy" or the use of “piratage” (“pirating” or “hacking) to refer to “data breach.” More presently though is sentence composition that makes sense in English, but, in French, either is awkward or confuses the meaning. In short, though the article is understandable and key concepts and terms may be parsed out, a bilingual francophone reader of this article would find a great advantage in being able to translate it back into English.

What ideas do you have to improve this article keeping in mind that we will not be doing translations this summer.
Translations are difficult, and I think this article has a good start to the translation. Aside from proofreading, one suggestion I have for improving this article deals with writing style. I noticed a couple instances where seemingly benign Wikipedia-discouraged phrases were used. As such, it could help the article to compare the phrases used against the list of discouraged phrases.

My second suggestion would be to update the references to laws and cases to examples that are more relevant to a francophone audience. For instance, there is a whole section dedicated to US laws, but it may be helpful to include sections about similar laws passed in France or other francophone countries.