User:HD1019/reflection

Reflection

Throughout this Wikipedia assignment, I learned a substantial amount about the other side of the online encyclopedia: how editors create and edit articles, discuss on talk pages debatable topics, review other people’s work, and the extensive search Wikipedia contributors do to prevent plagiarism for occurring there. In terms of article evaluation, I was surprised by the fact that any editor can post a comment in the article’s Talk page about a change they wanted to make but were not necessarily sure if appropriate so that others can provide some feedback about it prior to publishing those changes in the article. Going through various Talk pages demonstrated to me that long, sometimes argumentative conversations regarding certain aspects of an article can facilitate in the process of making a great article as the editors can easily communicate with one another across the world. WikiProjects grade articles under that subject based on quality and importance. The low-quality status of the covellite page and the lack of applications examples (despite increases in the number of research articles on that topic in past ten years) was what made me choose to edit it. From there, conducting further research showed that there was more information regarding the formation process of the mineral as well. However, the pre-existing article was not as well organized: repetition of information in different sections and the formation section lacking sub-titles. My contributions to the covellite webpage include expanding the applications section, adding and reorganizing the formation, structure, and occurrences sections; providing references to previous statements, removing certain sentences when no sources for that information could be found, and improving sentence structure. My initials thoughts when choosing the article to edit was that there were hardly any application examples- something I had considered to be critical in any mineral article. With multiple peer-reviewed research articles presenting new results on a variety of examples, I focussed my attention there. The other sections’ additions already had some information but lacked a consistent flow for readers. The lack of references for many statements previously made me concerned as to the information’s validity so further research confirmed certain parts while others were removed. Furthermore, improving grammar and sentence structure also allows for ideas to be clearly expressed. Thus, compared to the earlier version, the article appears more balanced, neutral, and reliable. It synthesizes a significant portion of recent research while remaining mindful of the audience.

During the peer review process, I provided feedback for two of my peers on their articles, in which I commented upon the lead section, structure, balanced coverage, neutrality, and reliability of sources. However, the dominant aspects I commented upon was the shifting certain pieces of information to different sections or adding new sections to improve flow, as well as providing more peer-reviewed scientific articles. For example, in one feedback, I suggested that if the proposed section of etymology was short, additional information regarding the mineral’s discovery history to reduce chance of an unbalanced structure. The feedback received was primarily from the TAs (the student who peer edited reviewed another webpage) and focused on providing sources (primarily to the pre-existing statements), adding links to other articles, and ensuring the content being written was on covellite and not another copper-bearing ore mineral (or discuss advantages of covellite-usage). The latter point mentioned was one that made me conduct background research in each application without the covellite aspect to better understand how the mineral augmented the applications’ characteristics. All comments were answered and addressed in future edits.

Overall, I learned a significant amount about Wikipedia’s policies, critically analyzing the source of information, methods to avoid plagiarism while creating a balanced synthesis of covellite. A Wikipedia assignment differs from other assignments of a summarizing nature from the past because it requires much more consideration of the audience: while a report for another class is generally the marker (or someone of the same academic experience as you), a Wikipedia article must cater to a wider audience and carefully choose diction to support the readers’ understanding. Wikipedia should be used to further the public’s understanding in field of earth science because of its extensive propagation into mainstream culture. With its vast array of articles, the online encyclopedia is often the public’s first choice when wanting to read up on any topic (is also normally one of the first results to appear in a search engine). As such, if articles in minerals or other topics are incomplete or incorrect, readers may not be as informed as they desire to be. Journal articles with original results are the best choice (less chance for inconsistencies) but are not usually targeted to the public but rather to those in that field. To bridge the gap between academics’ and the public’s understanding, Wikipedia articles can summarize the key ideas, concepts, and issues ongoing in the field. Despite having been told to avoid using Wikipedia for academic purposes, having now learned the process which contributors edit pages, I feel more confident when using Wikipedia to be able to observe certain aspects to inform me whether the article is of good standing (ex. sources for all ideas, well structured, does not appear biased).