User:Gqcwiki/sandbox

Article Evaluation [Week 2]
I chose to evaluate the article on William Stewart Halsted.

This is article is quite well written. The first paragraph gets right to the point ands lists some of Halsted's biggest accomplishments immediately, such as his emphasis on strict antiseptic technique and his development of the radical mastectomy. The first two paragraphs also touch on his character as a unique and confident doctor and his battles with drug addiction.

The table of contents of this article are organized by large, important themes. The 'Eponyms' section is especially interesting and useful in highlighting some of Halsted's most notable accomplishments.

The tone throughout is generally neutral and consistent with Wikipedia standards. Although, some sentences are just slightly too casual, such as "He didn't like his new school and even ran away at one point". This could be rephrased to sound a little more professional.

Some details were also added that were unnecessary. Rather than being succinct and only listing a few mentors, one sentence reads "Halsted then went to Europe to study under the tutelage of several prominent surgeons and scientists, including Edoardo Bassini, Ernst von Bergmann, Theodor Billroth, Heinrich Braun, Hans Chiari, Friedrich von Esmarch, Albert von Kölliker, Jan Mikulicz-Radecki, Max Schede, Adolph Stöhr, Richard von Volkmann, Anton Wölfler, Emil Zuckerkandl."

The article is well-cited overall and internal links to related Wikipedia pages are sufficient and appropriate.

In all, this article is well-balanced and reliable in content but improvements can be made in tone and sentence structure.

Discussion: What's a Content Gap? [Week 3]
1. Wikipedians often talk about "content gaps." What do you think a content gap is, and what are some possible ways to identify them?

A content gap is missing or inadequate information on a topic. One possible ways to identify content gaps could be to evaluate if an article on a certain topic is missing an important aspect of that topic. For example, a content gap in an article about a person that fails to address one of the person's biggest accomplishments would be a content gap. A content gap can also be when an important person or topic doesn't have a Wikipedia page at all.

2. What are some reasons a content gap might arise? What are some ways to remedy them?

A content gap may arise for several reasons. Sometimes Wikipedia articles are deleted because people believe the topic is not important enough to have its own article. In other cases, the author(s) of an article might not have done sufficient research on the topic before writing, causing major topics to be left out. A content gap may also arise if a topic is currently too controversial or widely disputed for it to be possible to discuss neutrally in a Wikipedia article.

3. Does it matter who writes Wikipedia?

Yes. While the idea behind Wikipedia is that anyone can contribute information to articles, authors should avoiding editing articles in which there may be a conflict of interest since this can lead to biased writing.

4. What does it mean to be "unbiased" on Wikipedia? How is that different, or similar, to your own definition of "bias"?

To be "unbiased" on Wikipedia means to write in a complete neutral tone and to address all perspectives and viewpoints equally. For example, an article on a controversial topic like abortion should not be used to argue for a certain stance but to address all sides of the argument and inform readers on any relevant developments like legislation. This is the same as my own definition of bias - while I may hold my own personal opinions, to be unbiased is to maintain a neutral stance.

Sidney Farber [Week 4]
For my Wikipedia project, I will be revising and adding to the article on Sidney Farber.

I was surprised as to how short his Wikipedia article is as of now given his enormous contributions to cancer research and activism. The article touches on his most notable accomplishments in research, but it is in a very short two paragraphs that I feel doesn't do justice in informing readers of his contributions. The heading of this section is also very vaguely named "Research". I hope to contribute more detail to this article in terms of the specific discoveries he made as well as elaborating on other aspects of his life as well, since the "Personal Life" section is currently only two sentences long. I also hope to improve the organization of this article, especially by introducing new sub-sections and modifying existing ones so that navigation within the article is much easier. This way, once I add more content to the article, readers will be able to access and find specific information more efficiently. The "References" section of this article also seems lacking as of now, given that the article itself is very short. I will definitely be adding credible sources to the references section as I conduct my research.

Potential References
Some of the references I hope to draw from as I revise and add to this article are already cited under the "References" section. However, I still feel I can extract more useful information from them given the sparseness of the content. These references, as well as a couple of others I will be looking to for information, include:



Discussion: Thinking about sources and plagiarism
1. Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information. Why?

Blog posts and press releases might give biased information on a topic. Blogs, especially personal blogs, often exist for a blogger to convey his or her personal opinions or stance on an issue. Press releases may also present information in a certain light and may be influenced by external factors. As a result, blogs and news sources are poor sources since they don't convey information in a neutral manner.

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

A company's website serves the purpose of advertising that company and presenting information about it in a positive, possibly biased light. A good source would offer information about that company in a neutral manner, with no conflict of interest regarding the company.

3. What is the difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism?

Copyright violation is the use, display, distribution, reproduction, etc. of work protected by copyright law without permission. On the other hand, plagiarism is the intentional or unintentional use of someone else's work as your own.

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

A good technique to avoid this is to first gather lots of information on a topic from multiple sources by taking notes, then writing content for the article. This, rather than researching and writing simultaneously, will prevent inadvertent close paraphrasing and plagiarism.

= DRAFT OF SIDNEY FARBER ARTICLE [Week 5-13]=

WP:COPYARTICLE, old revision of Sidney Farber which this user subsequently edited

= Discussion: Thinking About Wikipedia [Week 6] = 1. What do you think of Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality"?

I think Wikipedia's definition of neutrality is extremely important in upholding Wikipedia's status as a reliable, unbiased source of information. People don't turn to Wikipedia to be convinced of one thing or another - rather, they come to Wikipedia seeking accurate, credible, cited information. A lot of people even use Wikipedia as a launching point for further research by using the "References" section of each article. Therefore, I think Wikipedia's principle of writing articles from a neutral point of view is essential.

2. What are the impacts and limits of Wikipedia as a source of information?

I think the biggest impact of Wikipedia as a source of information is that it offers an easy way to learn about a topic quickly and efficiently. All of the most important things to know about a person, event, thing, etc. can be found in its Wikipedia page, so Wikipedia can serve as both a quick way to learn the basics about something or a really useful launching point for further research.

The biggest limitation or drawback however is that Wikipedia is not necessarily always reliable. Since it can be edited by anyone, and immediately without extensive peer or expert review, content can change in a second. As a result, what is on Wikipedia at any given moment is not guaranteed to be accurate, which is why Wikipedia itself is often not recognized as a credible source for research.

3. 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 blog posts, opinion editorials, and the like. These kinds of sources aim to convince readers of a certain thing or otherwise include lots of opinions and biased views. Since Wikipedia strives to present information in an unbiased manner, these kinds of sources are inappropriate.

4. 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, a lot of information that we have now might not have been available. A lot of facts that we now recognize as true might have still been controversial 100 years ago. As time and research continues through time, humans gain new understanding for what is true and not, so what is unbiased or controversial can change. For example, 100 years from now, something that we currently believe to be true and adequately supported by evidence could be proven wrong. This is why it is important for Wikipedia to change with time and for people to continuously improve and revise existing articles.