User:Matthias Süßen/Sandbox

Wikipedia @ Kiel University
Seminar: MNF-Geogr-211: Human Geography of Climate Change (060301)

Tutor

 * User:Matthias Süßen.
 * Feel free to direct any questions about this course to the tutor's talk page.

Participating students

 * User: Dag Feinler
 * User: Ebbe 1110
 * User: Ivan Wikipedio
 * User: EttiSSE
 * User: JOBI SSE
 * User: Gänseblümli
 * User: Julian Sonntag
 * User: Rahmancm
 * User: Simhasjbhs

Articles in progress

 * User:Matthias Süßen/Climate Change Adaptation
 * User:Matthias Süßen/Climate Change Adaption In Greenland
 * User:Matthias Süßen/Climate Change Adaptation in Southeast Asia
 * User:Matthias Süßen/Climate Change Adaptation Strategies On The German Coast

Wikipedia
Wikipedia suffers much criticism to this day. The reliability of Wikipedia has been frequently questioned and often assessed and you can find tons of studies about it:

"A study in the journal Nature said that in 2005, Wikipedia's scientific articles came close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors". Encyclopædia Britannica disputed the Nature study, and Nature replied with a formal response and point-by-point rebuttal of Britannica's main objections. Between 2008 and 2012, Wikipedia articles on medical and scientific fields such as pathology, toxicology, oncology, pharmaceuticals, and psychiatry were compared to professional and peer-reviewed sources and it was found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a high standard. Concerns regarding readability were raised in a study published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and a study published in Psychological Medicine (2012), while a study published in the European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology raised concerns about reliability.

Because Wikipedia is open to anonymous and collaborative editing, assessments of its reliability often examine how quickly false or misleading information is removed. A study conducted by IBM researchers in 2003—two years following Wikipedia's establishment—found that "vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly—so quickly that most users will never see its effects" and concluded that Wikipedia had "surprisingly effective self-healing capabilities". Quoted material."

- Reliability of Wikipedia: Revision history

But Wikipedia's reputation in modern science remains bad. On the other hand people use Wikipedia to copy whole texts. They would never admit it. However, Wikipedia has gaps and lacks detailed and accurate articles about many topics including those that are relevant to informed citizens. And that's where you come in. We need your expertise. Wikipedia can only get better with more edits, more media, and more translations.

Good article criteria

 * Definition of the term in a sentence
 * Meaningful introduction section (Google!)
 * Present central meanings in subchapters
 * Explain the historical development of the term
 * formulate clearly and simply
 * Explain/link technical terms
 * Evidence from reputable sources
 * appropriate length!
 * avoid unnecessary phrases like fillers and modal words
 * coherence and consistency
 * Fitrst things first: Order by importance
 * Focus your writing topic by answering the journalistic questions (five W's and H) (as many as fit): Who, what, when, where and how?
 * Embedding in specialist discourse

Wikipedia help pages

 * Good article criteria
 * Notability
 * Writing better articles
 * Verifiability
 * School and university projects

You can also which contains the essential elements to help you get to know how Wikipedia works.

''OR have a look at The Grande Guide to Wikipedia - an excellent alternative introduction to Wikipedia.