User:Joanvarsek/sandbox

Article Evaluation: Chosen Article: "Modes of Persuasion" The article does a pretty good job of staying on topic and only using relevant information. There was one point where the writer quoted William Jennings Bryan as a good example of pathos. This quote to me seemed confusing and unnecessary, especially because neither ethos or logos had examples with their explanations. The writer included a word with ethos, logos, and pathos that was "kairos". This word got a one sentence explanation while the other phrases received much more detailed definitions. The writer did a good job of not presenting bias in the writing. The whole article remained very factual and straightforward. At the end I checked the bibliography and there were only two sources, one for the quote of William Jennings Bryan, and one for the definition of kairos. There was much more information presented in the text and the author even quoted Socrates to begin the article. There should have been many more sources credited. There were no conversations on the talk link. The topic was very similar in the article to how we learned about it in class.

Further Reflection: I think that a content gap is missing information in an article or an area that could be made clearer or improved upon. One way to identify a content gap is to run a content gap analysis. This is where you look at what your article or website has to offer and then compare it with where you want it to be. Content gaps on wikipedia could arise because there are many people working on one site and one person could want to include something while another does not think it is important. Another reason a content gap could arise is because of person biases. Some may find one piece of information that they think is really interesting and then just go with it and forget to include other important details or story lines. One way to remedy this is to once again conduct a gap analysis. Before you can edit the gap you just first identify it. Once you identify the gap you can do research using multiple different, credible sources. By using multiple sources, you reduce the risk of accidentally missing something. Once you have your research you must then decide how to summarize and what the most important parts are to highlight and include. I think it does matter who writes Wikipedia because it must be people who can write in a way that is understandable and will put in the time to do the research. Being unbiased on wikipedia means keeping your own opinions or assumptions to yourself and presenting all parts of the story. This is the same as my personal definition of bias.