User:Kehli.west/NMAC 3108 Journal

May 31, 2019: Introduction
Hey everyone! My name is Kehli. I am nervous about this semester, but I'm determined to come out victorious! This is my last semester and I'm stoked! My concentration is Interdisciplinary Studies with my concentration in Psychology. This class actually fit my required courses and I don't really know how it relates to my degree, but I am going to give it my all! One interesting thing about myself is that I love to sing! I hope everyone has an amazing semester!
 * Nice to meet you! Congratulations on being so close to graduating! I think writing is actually pretty important to your major since papers and articles are how information about the field is shared. Especially since reports, papers, etc. are more digital now. I think this course should be pretty beneficial to you. —Sabub (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

June 1, 2019: What I Have Learned So Far
So far I have learned how to create an account on Wikipedia. I have also learned how to create a journal that has headings and content. This is very interesting and is totally foreign territory to me. I'm excited that I am learning something new.

June 7, 2019: Article Evaluation
I found WikiProjects to be very helpful to find articles to evaluate on any topic. I chose to evaluate the article Beyoncé. The article is very detailed and accurate pertaining to information about my favorite artist. There are many sources to validate the information presented. All of the facts were up-to-date. I appreciated that her latest musical endeavors are precisely noted minus her latest Netflix special Homecoming that just recently came out. The contributors did an incredible job! The article does not discuss any issues so all of the information is straight facts about her life. Nothing in the article read to be opinionated or biased. Most of the citations are correctly noted. I checked 3 of them and they went to the correct page. There are multiple reference articles cited internally and the few that I clicked on goes directly to the article that it references. On the talk page a few of the citations are noted to be corrected because they don't work properly. Also, someone noted that some facts are incorrect. This person did not go into detail and requested editing rights. The article is well composed and has been rated as one of the top 25 articles of the week three times. Kehli.west (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Kehli! I like Beyonce's music as well. It sound like the article is up to date with all of its information about her. On the talk portion of the page, I did notice how users fixed some broken links. Overall it was a great article to read about her.-Acm2625 (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Acm2625


 * Excellent post Kehli! Beyonce was a great choice. She's very relevant, and so I would hope her article was accurate. Reading through it I really come to appreciate all the wonderful things she's done with her popularity and influence. It is a well-written article, and definitely deserving of the merit others have attributed it. Again, wonderful analysis, and I'm glad you seemed to enjoy covering it! 1-800-OWLZ (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Well done evaluation. You touched on the articles content, tone, sources, and talk page. Bonus for selecting a great article.--Mightymize (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "Beyoncé" might not be the best article to evaluate, as it is obviously a well-edited page (your last sentence pretty much sums up why). You should choose something germane to the course or project topic. (I fixed some formatting of these comments, too.) —Grlucas (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

June 7, 2019: Topic of my Choosing
I am enjoying using Wikipedia. I have never really used it for anything but quick inquiries about pop culture topics. I am saddened that most of my professors spoke so much taboo over Wikipedia when it is actually a great source for reliable information. I am looking forward to learning more about Wikipedia because I am very interested in what it has to offer. Kehli.west (talk) 01:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi! I had the exact opposite experience. Some of my teachers told me it was great, while students use to laugh at it. Although, my teachers would never accept it as a credible source . --AmaniSensei (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't they? A source for what? —Grlucas (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The common narrative is that Wikipedia is not a credible source. The instructors suggested if we found some useful information that we should go straight to that source and cite the source. This would be for major assignments.--AmaniSensei (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I really want to believe you, but I can't. Why, do you think? 🤔 —Grlucas (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure. Based off my experience now, I believe Wikipedia is credible because I see how Wikipedia is constantly updated, and it tries to maintain it's neutrality.--AmaniSensei (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You should not cite Wikipedia in a college-level research paper, for example, for the same reason you do not cite old-skool encyclopedias. Why? Does it have anything to do with credibility? (I'm looking for you to support your suppositions, here. Why "believe" something when you can know by finding evidence?) —Grlucas (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I was referencing that when I mentioned major assignments. Hopefully everybody knows better than that. Furthermore, it is a difference between having faith in something and actually knowing something. I rather know, that is why I search for the actual evidence. --AmaniSensei (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * But that's my point: you present no evidence here to support your belief. 🙂 —Grlucas (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This could go on forever 🙂, but even Wikipedia says that it's a starting point for information and not the endpoint, and that it (Wikipedia) can be viewed unacceptable in certain cases. Hopefully this is the evidence you were looking for. --AmaniSensei (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There you go — a definite start. 👍🏼 (However, you should link Wikipedia pages using wiki links: Academic use. Ref tags are for external references.) —Grlucas (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Kehli! I agree. Upon entering this course, I still had my reservations about Wikipedia due to what has been repeatedly told to us by our teachers and professors, but now we are able to see and learn just how much work goes into creating an article. It is amazing to see that there are many dedicated people from all over collaborating with each other to make an article as accurate and credible as it can be. I am looking forward to learning more as well! Atallent (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * You should really spend more time developing these journal posts. For example, why might educators dissuade students from using Wikipedia? Are these reasons valid? Also, instead of saying that you're "looking forward to learning more about Wikipedia because I am very interested in what it has to offer" (A whole third of your post), learn something about it and discuss that. Please review the purpose of the journal. Thanks. —Grlucas (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

June 14, 2019: Article Choice
I have chosen Otis Redding and his museum in Macon. He is originally from Dawson, GA but he grew up in Macon, GA. Upon searching for the articles related to the Otis Redding Foundation I found one with a 78 completeness score and over 2126 people have viewed the article. This meets a good criteria for finding an article to edit except it has the green circle with the plus mark. I have decided to create a brand new article to write solely about his foundation and museum. There is no mention of his museum in the article. On the talk page, there are suggestions to edit the page if it will make the article better. Do you suggest that I edit this article even though it has the green circle with the plus sign? My other choices were Amerson River Park, which has no article and the Tubman Museum, which shares about the building's construction and when the museum began. Kehli.west (talk) 03:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * No, the main Redding article is not a good choice. Was there another you were thinking about? The foundation might be a good choice, if you want to write an article from scratch and it it's notable enough. What have you found other than [their web site https://www.otisreddingfoundation.org/home]? —Grlucas (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Can I use news articles about the foundation as sources? I have found two.Kehli.west (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Those might be biased.Kehli.west (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

June 15, 2019: Topic of my Choosing
I found the "Find Articles" button to be very useful. It was useful because it shows an article's completeness score and the article's frequency of views by users. It was much quicker than searching directly on Wikipedia. It made searching for my different topics very easy. I also like the ability to link other articles within my posts and notes. This is extremely helpful for users to view information they are not already familiar with. I tried out the ping feature this week. That is very useful and it helps with direct messages or comments to intended users. Kehli.west (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

June 22, 2019: Experiences with Adding Citations and Copyediting
I found the adding citation tutorial to be very helpful. I added a reference section and a citation in my sandbox. The visual editor is what I prefer to use because of he ease of adding citations using the buttons about the edit area. I like how it checks the link provided and shows if it is a usable link or not. I copyedited an article titled Hypergamy. I made a small change by adding the word "it" in an area of text that seem very ambiguous. It may sound silly, but I felt funny editing someone else's article. I know this is something to get used to especially because that is how Wikipedia works.Kehli.west (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi I also found the tutorial to be very helpful for editing and learning about citations. I think visual editor definitely makes it easier to look at and edit your work. Practicing in your sandbox is also very helpful. Great Post!-Acm2625 (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)Acm2625
 * For this copyediting assignment, I too felt a little strange editing someone else's article. I am a little worried about the one I did and if I even helped the article by adding those in-line citations or if the whole thing should have been removed because I feel pretty sure that not having those kind of citations means it can be considered plagiarized. Great work! NVaden (talk) 03:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * People do not own articles on Wikipedia. You need to do the assignments, please (the sandbox does not count here). Remember: be bold! —Grlucas (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I will do better with this.

June 22, 2019: Topic of my Choosing
It is so interesting to me how in school, textbooks and information was readily available. At that time, I never thought about who helped to create the sources or contributed to the information. With this opportunity to create an article to provide information about a landmark, I can imagine the pride that the past contributors to education and society felt. They had to also feel a great level of responsibility. I am mainly focused on accuracy and integrity with my article. I can't wait to add my contributions to Wikipedia.Kehli.west (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I recommend renaming all Journal posts labeled "Topic of my Choosing" to a more descriptive title. For example, the above entry could be retitled "Defining my Philosophy on Content Creation". This is much more specific than "Topic of my Choosing" and helps your reader to quickly determine what you will be writing about. Think of your description as a thesis statement if that helps. Of course, you would need to be more concise than using a full sentence.—TSchiroMGA (talk) 11:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Link to Draft for Assignment for Peer Review
I am currently working on formatting as I add information to my article. Here is the link to see my progress. Amerson River Park Most notes are located in my sandbox. Kehli.west (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

June 29, 2019: Comments on Peer Review
I reviewed Tionne's article progress. This is the link to my response. I think she did a good job gathering facts about the courthouse. I thought the WikiEdu tutorial about peer reviewing was very helpful. I was able to analyze her information better with the questions to prompt me as to what I should be looking for in her work. I know that I am far from done with my artice but it helps to be able to look at other people in the class and see that we all are still learning and maneuvering for a great article. It also helped me to see where some of my sources might not be good sources to use. I went to look for other sources and found quite a few. I now intend to blend those additional pieces of information into my article.Kehli.west (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

June 29, 2019: Independent Learning
I have been going to other pages and looking at the formatting code for help to get my formatting accurate. It is so helpful to see an example of what I am trying to achieve and using it as a guide to execute it within my own article. I also found helpful templates like the coordinates tool. I am expanding my article as I go. I find it more difficult to type my article then format. I like a finished product as I go. I have also shared a tip for citations with another student that I found to be helpful for my article so that they can use it in their reference area. I am going to continue to add to my information so that I can get my article complete during this week.Kehli.west (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it is a great idea to look to other pages as examples of how to accomplish something you might not know how to do yet. I have done this many times and I believe it to be very helpful as well, along with doing your own practice and research each week to improve our Wikipedia skills. Atallent (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Looking good. 👍🏼 —Grlucas (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

July 4, 2019: Social Media Plan
I did not create a social media plan for my article for this class. I have created social media plans for my personal social media which included niche concentration and content consideration. I wanted all of my content to be related and to serve a purpose. This would ensure that my followers would continue to consume what I put on the media. I also made sure that my content was not offensive and could reach multiple genres without being alienating my different types of followers. The textbook encourages transparency and I strived to do that so that my followers can relate to me. I have also paid attention to other curators and what hashtags they used for content to get responses. I utilize the same hashtags to acquire an audience that likes my similar message.Kehli.west (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

July 5, 2019: Adding Photos
I started off with the intention to add some photos off the internet and just give credit but I learned quickly that Wikipedia does not allow that. I have decided to add photos that I am going to take of the different parts of the park. This will be quicker than researching who took the picture and waiting on someone to respond to whether I can use the photo that they took. I think it is very important that we get permission from the people who take the photo so that we don't infringe on their property. By getting permission, we uphold integrity of our work and respect others for their contributions to the internet.Kehli.west (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm glad came past your Journal, I was going to do something similar to for my own article's photos, however knowing now that it will be pointless do so, I supposed will do the same as you and just take my own photos to upload. Thanks. Ousainou Adeniyi (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have realized many people are doing their journals this week on adding photos and the issues they are running into. Maybe I can find a day to make a day trip down to Macon to grab the photos that I need.
 * Sources and links to support your ideas are missing. —Grlucas (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I found news articles as secondary sources. Can you please elaborate the missing sources because I found articles to validate the information.Kehli.west (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You have no links or references in your posts above. Everything you write on Wikipedia (including your journal posts) should be sourced. For example, where did you learn that about using photos on Wikipedia that you mention in your first sentence? Simple links would suffice. I have mentioned this several times in my audio feedback. —Grlucas (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I see why I am not getting full credit SMH. Thanks for that. I will input more.Kehli.west (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

July 12, 2019: Field Trip
I decided to take my own photos so that I could avoid having to get special permission for the photos I found. I really enjoyed going to the Amerson River Park next to the Ocmulgee River. It was so beautiful and serene. The lighting was perfect. It wasn't too sunny. I also found most of the areas fairly easy. Some were hard to access due to gravel road. My car would not have done well going down some of the paths. The trails were pretty. I did not see any different types of flora but I didn't get to go far down the trails due to the extreme temperatures. Kehli.west (talk) 03:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

July 13, 2019: Adding Photos
I like how easy it is to add photos on Wikipedia. The WikiCommons feature was very helpful. I like that I can adjust the photos to different sizes to make the page more visually appealing. I also like the feature wrapping the text around the photos so that they can look naturally placed into the article. It did not take me very long. I think it took me around 45 minutes to upload the photos to WikiCommons and then put them into the article.Kehli.west (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Great photos! Play around with the formatting a bit to get them to integrate better in the article. Well done. —Grlucas (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

July 20, 2019: Reflective Essay
I chose to create a brand-new article. I enjoyed learning about formatting and the different ways code makeup a Wikipedia page. I wanted to create a page from scratch. I chose Amerson River Park for my central GA location. I researched the park and found articles that talked about the park and its construction and development. I also found article that included facts about the area surrounding the park and how it came about.

In article evaluation, I learned that sources need to be reputable and verifiable. This includes news articles and peer-reviewed journals. I found many articles from news websites but no peer-reviewed journals in GALILEO. The quality rating also helps with determining if an article needs to be evaluated for editing. In my situation, my article did not have a quality rating because I created the article, but I did see the ratings on other articles that I edited. One of the articles had a very high quality rating and the only issue that I could find was a broken link. The other article had a lower quality rating and I found a fact to be outdated so I changed it to the most current population number. Currently my article is in “Start” status. I know that after more time passes there will be more to add to the article since the park is only four years old. This will increase the quality rating.

I contributed a large amount of information to the article. I created each heading and the information in each section. One heading focused on a description of the park. Another student contributed a fact in this area. Another heading focused on the history of the park and the same student added a fact to this area. The other areas showed the different features and areas in the park. I also took the photos on the page. I contributed majority of the references and citations. The only things that I did not contribute was the side panel information box and the information about the Knope competition. I feel that the information I contributed is the flesh and blood of the article. It is the groundwork for other contributors to expand on.

I was able to participate in the peer reviews. I reviewed Tionne’s article changes for the Taliaferro County Courthouse. At the point of review, she had a good amount of information about the courthouse that had not been added to an article. Her references were from government and local government sites. These would not be seen as reputable sources because they were created by the people who maintain the courthouse information. She also had multiple headings noted to add information within the article. There was no formatting within her notes because she was still building her article. Everything was still in paragraph form but the information was separated to distinguish which information would be added to the different headings. No one reviewed my information. My article had not been drafted at that point. It would have been helpful to get an idea if I were on the right track. I think I did the best I could with the feedback that I received from the professor and other contributors.

I did receive some great suggestions from the professor and other Wikipedia contributors. I was not aware that I was not using links in my notes and that was hindering me from receiving full credit. I was so concentrated on writing my journals and article that I forgot to link to important pages. After the feedback, I am more mindful of adding my links into my text. I also received feedback in helping to evaluate my sources and references better. I was using sources that could be challenged for validity due to the fact that they did not meet any of the criteria that the educational lessons on WikiEdu suggested.

I learned that Wikipedia is a great source for finding information. I have always been encouraged not to use it. I think because people don’t know how much goes into creating an article, they choose not to browse Wikipedia. I learned that the information on Wikipedia can be just as reliable as an encyclopedia in book form. It is important to check for reliability before choosing articles. By checking for verifiable sources and quality ratings, contributors can decide whether the article is reliable. The assignments on Wikipedia have been comparable to other assignments I have had in the past because they both require use of reliable sources and fact checking. They require correct grammar and punctuation as well.

Wikipedia can be used to improve public understanding because the information on the site is a collection of information from multiple contributors who have verified and checked the information with intentions to provide factual information to others. By continuing this process, users will get the most accurate version of any information that they seek. This improves public understanding because everyone has the opportunity to learn shared information and it is important to have a consistency of understanding of each topic on Wikipedia.Kehli.west (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)