User:Iswwiki/sandbox

-

William Bradley Coley Wikipedia Article Final Draft
WP:COPYARTICLE of William Coley, see Iswwiki's version at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Coley&oldid=838075656

Decision to Write Article on William Coley Rather Than Francis Peyton Rous
After talking about immunotherapy in class, I've decided that I would like to understand the work and research of William Coley more in depth, and have thus decided to write my article on Coley instead of Rous. I believe there will be more information available on the life and medical legacy of Coley than of Rous available, and I'm excited to learn more about the man coined as the father of immunotherapy.

Francis Peyton Rous Wikipedia Article Starting Thoughts
Since the article as it currently stands is pretty bare, I cannot wait to see what a difference my contribution will make. First, I would like to delve into his legacy more, focusing on him as a person and a world renowned scientist rather than a few sentences on a Wikipedia page. To do this, I'm hoping to also explain the importance of his contributions, his selection for the Nobel Prize, his research interests, and I would also like to describe his Nobel prize-winning experiment in greater detail.

Some sources I plan to use, but would like to gather further information on:

1. "A Notable Career in Finding Out: Peyton Rous 1879 - 1970". Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, www.biblio.com/book/notable-career-finding-out-peyton-rous/d/637526033.

2. National Academy of Sciences - http://www.nasonline.org. "Francis Peyton Rous". Biographical Memoirs, National Academy of Sciences, nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/.

3. Scheffler, Robin. "Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Changes in the Public Health System". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4850a1.htm. (Would like use this as a guide to what sources they cite, CDC is reliable and most likely uses credible sources for this project).

I would like to expand these sources after I meet with my personal librarian on Friday.

Week Six Discussion: Thinking About Wikipedia
What do you think of Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality"? Wikipedia's definition of neutrality, which includes representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic, seems extremely reasonable to me. I was very happy to find out that Wikipedia, a site often criticized for its ability to be edited by any member of the community, holds such high standards for its writing. Since it is such a popular way to retrieve information, I think it is extremely necessary for the article to maintain a neutral bias so as not to influence its many readers and simply provide accurate facts rather than opinions.

What are the impacts and limits of Wikipedia as a source of information? The impacts of Wikipedia as a source of information lies in its wide range and availability across the world. When you search any term, person, or place on the internet, you are most often met with a Wikipedia article. This is beneficial in the sense that there is some type of universal knowledge accessible across the world. This makes Wikipedia a sort of common ground for academia and information worldwide. The limits are quite obvious and often cited. With the ability for any person to edit Wikipedia, there is often a chance for misattributed or completely false information to be publicized and circulated, confusing Wikipedia readers into believing unverified authors over legitimate sources.

'''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?''' Wikipedia specifically states in its training for contributors that blog posts, press materials that showcase bias, and, at times, newspapers and popular press articles whose legitimacy has not yet been proven or backed up by research. This creates some problems because it forces editors to neglect new research (within the past five years) that may not have been verified to Wikipedia's standards. Altogether, however, I think this creates more positive benefits than problems because it instills Wikipedia's values around publishing correct and legitimate data to the world.

'''If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, how might its content (and contributors) be different? What about 100 years from now?''' I think that if Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, it would be much less focused on finding detailed and accurate information from legitimate sources. I sincerely believe that this is one of the main issues of publishing information to the public. Although it is important that we have access to as much information as possible, this push for fast information often leaves us with less than accurate information. In the days of "fake news," I see this as a problem today, and it will most likely continue to be a problem in 100 years. As technology and our world progresses, public information and sites like Wikipedia will have no choice but to meet demand for new knowledge. Hopefully, there will be some significant changes in our emphasis on accurate information rather than fast information.

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

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 is likely to be extremely biased in favor of their product, service, etc. Rarely would you find a company website willing to list side effects or dangers associated with their brand. Instead, it will be more beneficial to Wikipedia contributors to utilize third-party sources that are not affiliated with the company and would not be likely to distribute false information for the benefit of said company.

What is the difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism? Plagiarism is claiming ownership for a work you did not author, or using someone else's work without proper attribution. Copyright infringement is using someone else's work without obtaining their permission. Citing accurately and often is extremely necessary to avoid both issues on Wikipedia.

What are some good techniques to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism? My advice to avoid plagiarism and close paraphrasing is to attempt to write your article not line for line as you read your source, but instead after you are able to digest the information, process it, and put it into your own words. With this strategy, it is much more difficult to be pulling information and phrases that are similar to your sources, even if you do not intend to plagiarize.

Week Two Discussion: Content Gap and Contribution
'''Wikipedians often talk about "content gaps". What do you think a content gap is, and what are some possible ways to identify them? What are some reasons a content gap might arise? What are some ways to remedy them?'''

I think content gaps are the areas of Wikipedia that have relatively little to no information. These pages would likely be the ones that are labeled as needing more information and have little information or sources contributed to it. Of course there content gaps are likely to happen on Wikipedia, its impossible for every single concept or thing to covered thoroughly. Plus, new information is compiled every day as well as new ideas, people, things, and places. To remedy these inevitable gaps, I believe Wikipedia should keep track of what is being searched more of with time, and they should work hard to assign contributors and editors to these articles and to other subjects that need to be more thoroughly reviewed.

'''Does it matter who writes Wikipedia? ''' It does matter who writes on Wikipedia. To avoid a reputation of being a careless source of illegitimate information, Wikipedia should work hard to ensure that their editors and contributors have the website's best interest at heart. Contributors should be unbiased of the subject and willing to consistently update and improve their writing and the writings of others to make sure that Wikipedia is striving to provide the best and most reliable information to the public.

'''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 is slightly different than what I consider to be biased in the real world. For example, when I think of bias I tend to think of someone having negative feelings against that subject; however, on Wikipedia any stance that is not completely neutral, whether it be in a negative or positive light, is considered to be biased. Although it has a much stricter form on this platform, I find it reassuring because it is a source for educating the masses and should most definitely be free from any unwarranted opinions

Week Two Assignment: Evaluating Articles
I decided to evaluate the Wikipedia entry for the lumpectomy, which I was surprised to find was very underdeveloped.

'''Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?'''

Yes, everything is related to the article topic. However, I feel that it talks more about its means of diagnosis than of treatment, which is what the lumpectomy is all about.

'''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?'''

The article remains neutral. It does make the claim that the lumpectomy is a less physically and emotionally damaging treatment than the full mastectomy; however, I feel like at this point in time this is accepted as fact in the scientific community.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I think there should maybe be a brief history of how the lumpectomy came to be from an anti-mastectomy movement.

'''Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?'''

I found that all but one citation were reliable and appropriately cited from scientific journals and other reliable sources. The other links to a social network site, which I edited as unreliable to the article.

'''Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?'''

No, all of the information seems to be current. However, I feel like six or so sources for such a broad topic could be greatly expanded.

'''Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?'''

The Talk page of the article proved that it is used for many medical discussions as a reliable source, which is why I believe it should be expanded upon and improved.

'''How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?'''

The article is rated well. It is a part of WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Women's Health, two projects that seem to be pretty significant for this platform, since it contains a large amount of medical information.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

I think the way Wikipedia discusses this definitely neglects the history of the procedure and its roots. I believe that we definitely spent a good amount of time to understand the transition from the radical Halsted mastectomy to the lumpectomy with radiation, but I see very few signs of this explanation on the page. Maybe there is a different page better suited for this history but I believe it should still be mentioned for clarification.

'''I apologize that this content was originally posted on my Talk page and not my sandbox. I was confused as to where the discussion questions were seen. Hopefully I have fixed the error.'''