User:Lrive133/sandbox

Week 2
'''Wikipedians often talk about "content gaps." What do you think a content gap is, and what are some possible ways to identify them?'''

It seems a content gap is a lapse or inconsistency in a set of content, such as missing, irrelevant, or unsupported information. A way to identify them is through a content gap analysis in which you carefully study the consistency of your content and even have an objective third party analyst the content to ensure there are no gaps.

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

Content gaps can arise through carelessness, lack of communication between writers or content creators, using unreliable sources, or not including your source. To remedy this, there must be a firmer emphasis on careful content creation and communication between the people creating the content. There must also be emphasis on reliable sources and the citing of those sources.

Does it matter who writes Wikipedia?

It does indeed matter who writes Wikipedia in the context of intent, but anybody can write on wikipedia as long as they provide reliable sources to support their unbiased writing.

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

Unbiased means not pushing your own agenda, or letting personal convictions cloud your judgment when writing an article. It isn't much different from my own definition of bias. I consider it very similar to my own definition in the sense that objectivity means not letting external or extraneous factors influence decision-making.

Week 4
Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information because they are oftentimes infused with opinionated information that is presented as fact, which may therefore skew your research. The posts themselves may not be using reliable sources of information or are not citing sources at all, so we cannot verify the information. The post or press release has a purpose other than to educate, which is to drive traffic, so it is less concerned with the reliability or the validity of the information, and more concerned with how captivating or interesting the information is. These sources are also not primary sources, and with the aforementioned argument considered, are not reliable secondary sources and should be taken lightly. The company has motive to maintain a positive facade and to not relay any factual information that criticizes the company or gives points of view that are not in alignment with the way the company positions itself. It is, in its simplest form, it is very biased and has reason, not only to divert the information on its website from external, negative information, but to also use its authority to suppress the contrary points of view. Copyright infringement is the violation by one person onto the rights of a copyright holder, while plagarism is the general theft one one's ideas, content, or work, and presenting it as your own. The juxtaposing force between copyright infringement and plagiarism is that copyright is the establishment of an actual law which government will penalize you for breaking, while plagiarism is societally and ethically based, which means that it isn't illegal, but society shall still penalize you in whichever way it sees fit. To avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism, on can firstly, make an effort to fully grasp the concepts that they are writing about so as to be able to structure the information in a way that makes sense to them. Moreover, taking notes would further the understanding of the writer and help them develop their ideas in their own words as opposed to using the words of others. Additionally, the notes should be taken as if didactically explaining the information to someone who might be interested in the information. Using more than one source would also increase the pool of information to choose from, limiting the chance of deriving all information from one source, thereby copying that source and its structure.
 * 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?
 * What is the difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism?
 * What are some good techniques to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism?

Links to Possible Article Topics:
Jacques Antoine Marie de Cazalès--- I have chosen this page as one of my possible pages to write for primarily because this is my character in the game, but also because there is a dire need for information to be added to his page. There is little information on his life, his political ideas, or his contributions to the revolution and I would love to contribute to the addition of this information to his page. Moreover, the talk page is inactive-- I was the last post-- which means that it is not a priority in the wikipedia community, and I can essentially "pick up the slack." I haven't been able to find much on him independently, but what I have found is not even recognized in this wikipedia article, such as his close relation to Maury. I will continue to expand this article as my research expands.

French nobility--- I chose this page because it is is closely related to my research for my character and I noticed a few concerning things about the wikipedia page. Most eye-catching is that there is a significant decline in the density of information when the article covers "Duties," "Economic status," and "Nobility and the enlightenment," all of which are important topics that help shape the understanding of the French Nobility. Moreover, the talk page hasn't been active since 2013 and the activity on it doesn't seem very productive and seems to focus on issues less significant to the Nobility page itself. Dare I say, there appeared to be a few "trolls" in the talk page. Needless to say, some people aren't taking the Nobility page seriously and I would like to give it some more authority.

Contribution Ideas:
The page is lacking in a captivating lead text, which I would extend to include his conservative political ideologies and relation to the king. I will include much more detail about his family life, including his wife and children. I will include information about his education and his qualifications as a skilled political orator and trusted counsel for the king. HIs role in the nobility is greater than alluded to in the wikipedia page and should be corrected. I especially will add a section describing his role in the National Assembly. I have uncovered some information regarding his opposition to the national assembly, as well as his firm positions and passions for particular debates and discussions. I plan to have a sections dedicated to his political, religious, and philosophical beliefs and perspectives, as these are looked over in his wikipedia page. Because the page is so barren and inactive, there is a lot to work with. The "biography" section of this page represents most of the reliable english information of Cazales. The biography section will be cut up to include some of it into the lead section and scatter the rest into "early life" and "political career." I find the most important sections to cover for cazales will be early life, political career, relation to the nobility, role in the assembly, and death.

Drafting:
Jacques Antoine Marie de Cazalès (February 1, 1758 – November 24, 1805) was a French orator and politician. He was born at Grenade, Haute-Garonne to a family of the lower nobility. With his father as an adviser to the parliament of Toulouse, Cazalès undertook a career in the military, becoming captain of the dragoons at the age of 21. In this political career, he proved to be a devout representative of the right, becoming the elected deputy of the nobility for the Verdun countries. His rightist ideals and orations made him political enemies, such as Barnarve, who scarred Cazalès in a duel. As a moderate conservative, Cazalès favored an intermediate system of government, between absolute and constitutional monarchy. Cazalès also tried to found a conservative-liberal party, along with Mirabeau.

What do you think of Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality"?
Wikipedia defines neutrality as the objective standpoint a Wikipedia editor must take in creating or editing articles. There must not be any persuasion or suggestion within the article. There mustn't be any opinions or extraneous information included in the article, and all information must be backed by scholarly sources.The Editor must be sure to not be positive or negative when writing the article. The article should be a compilation of objective facts backed by scholarly sources, completely devoid of one's personal opinions, beliefs, perspective, or critiques.

What are the impacts and limits of Wikipedia as a source of information?
Wikipedia clearly has a profound impact as a source of information. it is a widely used, vastly credited source of information that is readily available to anyone with internet access. It's articles are as precise as those in Encyclopedia Britannica, according to a study in the journal Nature. That being said, because Wikipedia is open for anyone to edit, it connotes a general feeling of unreliability, despite it's system of internal controls and self-monitoring. Wikipedia is limited in that it itself cannot be cited as a source of information and it is limited in that it has a stigma attached to it that it is unreliable, while the facts and its regulatory systems ensure otherwise.

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 might exclude magazines, videography, articles or books not written by experts, anonymous authors, books in libraries and bookstores, and articles written by professionals but published by commercial publishers. A possible problem with this is that a scholarly and factual article written in a magazine such as Time might be overlooked despite its relevancy as a source, because it was published by commercial publishers. Another problem might be that the only information found on a particular topic or person is not deemed "scholarly" by Wikipedia and therefore cannot be covered or written about, such as when an author writes a book on a particular person or event.

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, most of the facts would be hazy at best. Since information was not as readily available as it is today, Editors would find it difficult to find scholarly sources, which might prompt them to resort to unscholarly sources or hearsay. There also might be a less objective stance, due to the influences of the times. The structure and focus of the articles might also be different to today, possible longer sections as opposed to the more engaging shorter sections of today. On the other hand, if Wikipedia was written 100 years from now, I imagine that the structure of the articles might be different to adjust for the most captivating read for the people of the time. Wikipedia might also be more expansive as information becomes more available and more interconnected. The articles would also be more objective and factual because of the new systems that separate fact from fiction with ease.

Lead Section
Jacques Antoine Marie de Cazalès (February 1, 1758 – November 24, 1805) was a French orator and politician. He was born at Grenade, Haute-Garonne to a family of the lower nobility. With his father as an adviser to the parliament of Toulouse, Cazalès undertook a career in the military, becoming captain of the dragoons at the age of 21. In this political career, he proved to be a devout representative of the right, becoming the elected deputy of the nobility for the Verdun countries. His rightist ideals and orations made him political enemies, such as Barnarve, who scarred Cazalès in a duel. As a moderate conservative, Cazalès favored an intermediate system of government, between absolute and constitutional monarchy. Cazalès also tried to found a conservative-liberal party, along with Mirabeau.
 * Include relation to the king

Early Life
Cazalès was not very educated as a young man. His father, mostly concerned with his duties to parliament, had little time to secure Cazalès' education. With his studies suspended at twelve, the young Cazalès turned to a career in the military, and at fifteen years old, entered in a regiment of dragoons. He made an honest name for himself and by the age of 21 he would become a captain.

Cazalès, however, wanted to pursue a career outside of the military and so sought an education. He taught himself through the works of historians and publicists. With a special interest in law, he studied the history of English government. His fascination in government brought him to Montesquieu's school, where he studied the principles of government, liberty, and the separation of powers within government.

In his early political life, Cazalès was imprisoned for his efforts against Parlement Maupeou.

Political Ideologies
In the Constituent Assembly he belonged to the section of moderate royalists who sought to set up a constitution on the British model, and his speeches in favour of retaining the right of war and peace in the king's hands and on the organization of the judiciary gained the applause even of his opponents. Although he didn't leave many records of his speeches or personal life, his political beliefs and ideologies were published in journals like the Moniteur.
 * Include allegiance to nobility
 * Include link to french nobility
 * "sacred inviolable right to property"
 * Include rights of women
 * rights of slaves

Relationship to the King

 * Trusted advisor to the king

Duel
Apart from his eloquence, which gave him a place among the finest orators of the Assembly, Cazalès is mainly remembered for a duel fought with Barnave.

After the Monarchy

After the insurrection of August 10, 1792, which led to the downfall of royalty, Cazalès emigrated. He fought in the army of the émigrés against revolutionary France, lived in Switzerland and in England, and did not return to France until 1803