User:MonikaWanis/sandbox

Week 2 Blog – Blog About Your Experiences

I’ve never written a blog before. I have also never edited a Wikipedia page before. I feel very averse to doing this assignment which is likely a result of the expansion of my comfort zone. Every time I log on to my portal, I feel an intense desire to exit out of it and push this assignment to a later date. And that is is exactly what I have been doing! However, the time has come where I must face this in order to obtain a good grade and graduate from this university with a master’s degree.

The first reason why I feel intimidated is because like I have already mentioned, I have never edited a Wikipedia page nor have I ever written a blog. I dislike when people read my thoughts. I have never really written in this manner for a class before and it feels almost revealing or maybe exposing. I don’t like people really reading my inner dialogue or thought processes. I feel as if a blog is a public journal and I would never publicize my journal entries. If my writing will be viewed by others, I always cater to that audience and never cross the public versus private boundary. My thoughts are carefully planned to cater to what the reader expects and what he or she deems appropriate in a given context. I don’t even let people read my daily planner because it is written in a private tone. So, needless to say, this weekly blogging assignment is not expanding my comfort zone, but rather yanking me out of my comfort zone. This could end well or it could end poorly. By the end of the semester I will know which one it is.

The second reason why I feel intimidated by this assignment is because I’m already about 8 weeks behind. My dislike for public blogging combined with my avoidance of this assignment serve to reinforce each other and fuel me with more anxiety! So, anyways, enough with my rambling. This first blog is supposed to be about my experiences. Well, this is quite a broad topic. If the question is about my blogging experiences, then you clearly already know how I feel. If the question is about my Wikipedia editing experiences and the research and writing process, then I don’t know how I feel yet because I haven’t began doing that yet. If the question is about my experiences in general…well, that’s for another blog. See you next week!

Article Evaluation - Notes about observations and learnings

Article Title: Psychedelic Drug

- Everything in the article was relevant to the topic but what distracted me was the disorganization of the page and how it wasn't very uniform or logically structured. I also think there were large gaps of information that were missing that should have been in that article. Also, there was very specific and detailed information which seemed odd to me considering the article was missing the basic foundation.

- The article appeared neutral to me. I didn’t think it was biased but some of the claims that were made were not cited.

- I didn’t think that there were any viewpoints that were overrepresented but I did think that the entire article underrepresented what we know about psychedelic drugs.

- I checked all of the citations and 3 did not work and 2 rerouted me back to the same Wikipedia page that I was reading. Much of the information in the article is true but it isn’t cited.

- Each fact is not referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference. Some are not referenced at all. Most of those that are referenced do come from a peer reviewed article. Some of the ones that were referenced came from websites that didn’t appear to be too credible.

- I’m not sure if the information is out of date but there is quite a bit of missing information. This could be due to the fact that the page has not been paid much attention or newly discovered information is not included. According to the bottom of the page, the last edit date was September 10th, 2017. I think that this article could have a better foundation if the following is added: What are drugs and how psychedelic drugs fit under this umbrella term, stats about who uses psychedelic drugs, where are psychedelic drugs found, who discovered psychedelic drugs, a comprehensive listing of all known psychoactive drugs and what we know about each one, when did psychedelic drugs arise, why do people use psychedelic drugs, how are psychedelic drugs used, the chemical and street names for psychedelic drugs, the history of psychedelic drugs, medical uses of psychedelic drugs, current testing of psychedelic drugs, myths and urban legends, more information on the legality, dosage, prices, and the side effects of psychedelic drugs.

- The last conversation about this page happened over two years ago. The conversations that were had were about the content of the page and it’s accuracy as opposed to adding a more comprehensive and complete basic foundation of psychoactive drugs.

- I would rate this article a 5/10. I don’t think it’s a part of any WikiProjects.

- We haven’t talked in great detail about psychedelic drugs in class but we have talked about alternative states of consciousness. The Wikipedia article very briefly touches on the effects of these drugs. We have talked more subjectively about the trajectory of these substances with respect to scientific study. We discussed more of the anthropological side of it by talking about altered states of consciousness. The article focuses more on the neurotransmitters associated with this class of drugs and it also talks a little bit about how we think they impact the brain, which we didn’t really talk much about in class.

Week 3 Blog - What's a content gap?

I was very nervous about beginning week 3 but this is kind of fun! I chose a topic I am very interested in, psychedelic drugs. I also feel better about it because I think this page is sort of terrible and that I can help make it so much better. I can envision what a more structured and organized article would look like. I would provide a more comprehensive view of the topic since I’m quite knowledgeable on it and have quite a few peer reviewed sources that I could add to it. I think a good Wikipedia article is organized logically with the presentation of basic information first and then detailed information. I also think that it should cover some basic questions such as who, what, where, when, why, and how. A content gap is a spot in the Wikipedia article where information is missing. It is a spot where the lack of information causes for a disconnect between one part of the article and the next. A way to identify a content gap is if you are reading and begin asking yourself, how did I get here or what does this have to do with the previous paragraph. It is also easy to spot a content gap if you are asking yourself basic questions but the article has skipped over answering those and began addressing higher level questions. I think that content gaps may arise when people aren’t knowledgeable about a topic. While it may seem silly, I also think it depends on the personality that is editing the page. A type A person may try to be as organized, comprehensive, logical and complete as possible while a type B person may just try to include to gist of the topic, what he or she thinks is interesting, or what he or she knows the most about. Way’s to remedy these content gaps is the provide a skeleton or outline for every Wikipedia page created. That way, editors have sort of a scaffolding and know what they should include in each page. I think it matters who writes Wikipedia because obviously experts on a topic would be better able to provide information and sources to back up their claims. I also think that experts would be more knowledgeable about how the information should be logically organized. Being unbiased on Wikipedia means providing the facts and leaving out your own opinions. This is different from my definition of “bias” because bias is the inclusion of your opinions.

Week 4 Blog – Blog About Your Experiences That was SO FUN! I just officially did my first Wikipedia edit!! I went to the psychedelic drug Wikipedia page and I added the following sentence: Studies show that psychedelics are physiologically safe and do not lead to addiction. In fact, two studies conducted using psilocybin in a psychotherapeutic setting reveal that psychedelic drugs may assist with treating alcohol and nicotine addiction. Then I cited the statements to a reliable source which was the following: Nichols, D. E. (2016). Psychedelics. Pharmacological reviews, 68(2), 264-355. That felt so cool! I keep going back to the Wikipedia page that I edited and looking at the citation and the sentence. I’m just so fascinated that I edited the internet just like that! I was surprised at how easy editing it was. I thought it would take a lot more effort. I was especially worried about the citation part. That was so easy! I just hit the cite a journal template and filled in the blanks. The template formats it exactly how Wikipedia wants it. I did make a couple of mistakes at first. I put the DOI in incorrectly. I tried it again and I still could not get the link to successfully work. Every time I would click on it it would say access denied. Wikipedia also notified me of my mistake because it highlighted the DOI part in red. I tried once more and it still didn’t work. I redid the citation template and this time I inserted the URL instead of the DOI and it worked! Now I’m asking myself now what? Do I monitor the talk page and see if my comment is accepted or rejected?

Week 5 Blog – Thinking About Sources and Plagiarism I think that blog posts and press releases are poor sources of reliable information because they have a lot of personal opinions in them rather than factual, scientific evidence. A company’s website is likely to be highly biased because they are trying to portray themselves in the best light possible since their profit is on the line. Using a company’s website as the main source of information about that company will likely be information that is skewed highly in their favor. A copyright violation is using someone else’s work that is protected by a copyright law. This may be reproducing, distributing, or displaying the work of someone else without permission. Plagiarism is using someone else’s work and expressing it as if it were your own. I think that the differences are that a copyright violation is displaying someone else’s work without their permission while plagiarism is displaying someone else’s work without granting them credit. To avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism you can read a portion of text and then come up with your own sentence independent of that source. Your sentence should summarize or sum up what the source has stated without using similar words. A poor way to do this is the read a sentence and rewrite it in your own works. This rewriting process should be a novel description of what you read, rather than a reiteration of it. The topic I want to work on for the remainder of this project is the same Wikipedia article I have been working on. I will be edited the Psychedelic Drugs Wikipedia page. After looking at the content of the article and reading the talk page, there are several areas that I want to improve. There are quite a few information gaps and the talk page did not provide much insight about if anyone is working on filling these gaps or not. It seems like not many people have been working on it although the last edit was September 10th of this year. First, I would define what drugs are and how psychedelic drugs are a subset of them. Then I would define what specifically psychedelic drugs are and how they differ from other classes of drugs. I would also include information about the prevalence of psychedelic drug use and information about who uses these substances, in which settings they are most frequently used in and why. I would also expand upon the history section to include information about the discovery of psychedelic drugs, the history of psychedelic drug use over time, and what known psychedelic drugs are out there. Lastly, I would include the medical uses of psychedelic drugs, what current research has to say about them, and what their legality status is. I would also include the positive reported effects of psychedelic drugs as well as their negative side effects.

Week 6 Blog

I checked to see if my first and only edit is still on the Psychedelic Drugs page and it is! This is so exciting. So now, my planned contributions are the following: - Provide a definition of what drugs are and how psychedelic drugs are a subset. - Define what specifically psychedelic drugs are and how they differ from other classes of drugs. - Provide information about the prevalence of psychedelic drug use and information about who uses these substances, in which settings they are most frequently used in and why. - Expand upon the history section to include information about the discovery of psychedelic drugs, the history of psychedelic drug use over time, and what known psychedelic drugs are out there. - I would include the medical uses of psychedelic drugs, what current research has to say about them, and what their legality status is. - Include the positive reported effects of psychedelic drugs as well as their negative side effects.

Baker, John R. (1994). Consciousness Alteration as a Problem-Solving Device: The Psychadelic Pathway. Yearbook for Ethnomedicine and the Study of Consciousness, 3, 51-89.

Brecher, E. M. (1972). Licit and illicit drugs (p. 359). Boston: Little, Brown.

BRUHN, B. P., PSYCH, C., & MAAGE, N. (1975). Intellectual and Neuropsychological Functions in Young Men with Heavy and. Am J Psychiatry, 132(4).

Charvat, J. L. (1998). Barriers to effective drug abuse prevention: The role of authoritarian ideology. Journal of psychoactive drugs, 30(1), 69-79.

Fisher, G. (1963). Some Comments Concerning Dosage Levels of Psychedelic Compounds for Psycho-therapeutic Experiences. Psychedelic Review, 1, 208-218.

Gouzoulis-Mayfrank, E., Habermeyer, E., Hermle, L., Steinmeyer, A. M., Kunert, H. J., & Sass, H. (1998). Hallucinogenic drug induced states resemble acute endogenous psychoses: results of an empirical study. European psychiatry, 13(8), 399-406.

Halpern, J. H., & Pope,Harrison G.,,Jr. (2001). Hallucinogens on the internet: A vast new source of underground drug information. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 158(3), 481-3. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/220458998?accountid=14472

Halpern, J. H., & Pope, H. G. (1999). Do hallucinogens cause residual neuropsychological toxicity?. Drug and alcohol dependence, 53(3), 247-256.

Jacob, P. I. I. I., & Shulgin, A. T. (1994). Structure-activity relationships of classic hallucinogens and their analogs. NIDA research monograph, 146, 74-91.

McKenna, D. J. (1995). Plant hallucinogens: springboards for psychotherapeutic drug discovery. Behavioural brain research, 73(1), 109-116.

Micke, M. M. (1996). The case of hallucinogenic plants and the internet. The Journal of School Health, 66(8), 277-280. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/215682451?accountid=14472 Rosenthal, S. H. (1964). Persistent hallucinosis following repeated administration of hallucinogenic drugs. American Journal of Psychiatry, 121(3), 238-244.

Mogar, R. E., & Aldrich, R. W. (1969). The use of psychedelic agents with autistic schizophrenic children. Psychedelic Review, 10, 5-13.

Salzman, C., KOCHANSKY, G. E., SHADER, R. I., & LIEFF, J. (1972). The psychology of hallucinogenic drug discontinuers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 129(6), 755-761.

Schultes, R. E. (1970). The botanical and chemical distribution of hallucinogens. Annual Review of Plant Physiology, 21(1), 571-598.

Schultes, R. E. (1979). Hallucinogenic plants: their earliest botanical descriptions. Journal of psychedelic drugs, 11(1-2), 13-24.

Shulgin, A. T. (1976). DMT & TMA-2. Journal of Psychedelic Drugs, 8(2), 167-169.

Spruce, R. (1975). t Indole Alkaloids In Plant Hallucinogens. Journal of Psychedelic Drugs.

Szara, S. (1967). The Hallucinogenic Drugs—Curse or Blessing?. American Journal of Psychiatry, 123(12), 1513-1518.

My edits so far: - Provided a definition of what drugs - Provided an explanation of how psychedelic drugs are a subset of the umbrella term “drugs” - Defined what psychedelic drugs are and how they differ from other classes of drugs - Provided information about the legality of psychedelic drugs - Provided information about large institute stances on psychedelic drug reserach

Drugs (link) are substances that are consumed through various methods and produce physiological and psychological changes. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/drug

Psychedelic drugs are also referred to as hallucinogens (link). Hallucinogen is a broad term that encompasses a wide range of drugs in addition to psychedelics. Although other drugs may alter cognition and perception, psychedelics are a discrete category of drugs that have a distinct mechanism of action that is separate from other consciousness altering agents. http://pharmrev.aspetjournals.org/content/68/2/264 There are two major types of psychedelics: indoleamines and phenethylamines. Psychedelics act mainly upon the neurotransmitter serotonin. Serotonergic pathways are abundant throughout the brain, however, psychedelics act predominately in the noradrenergic locus coeruleus and the cerebral cortex. https://www.nature.com/articles/1395318

In 1970 the United States of America passed the Controlled Substances Act (link) and since then, LSD and other well-known psychedelics were deemed Schedule 1 drugs. Placing psychedelics in this category made them increasingly difficult to study and the majority of clinical studies that focused on researching their therapeutic value were immobilized. ttp://pharmrev.aspetjournals.org/content/68/2/264 This classification, however, did not diminish the number of users of psychedelic drugs. In fact, LSD played a large role in youth culture during the 1960s and 1970s. According to Krebs and Johansen, 2013, over 30 million individuals have tried LSD, psilocybin, or mescaline. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1430785207?pq-origsite=gscholar

Despite evidence that psychedelic drugs may prove to be therapeutic in certain medical settings, most medical and scientific agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (Link), the National Institute on Drug Abuse (Link), and the National Institute of Mental Health (Link), currently have little intentions to research the potentially therapeutic benefits of psychedelics. However, regardless of medical acceptance, these drugs remain popular. http://pharmrev.aspetjournals.org/content/68/2/264

Week 7 Blog

I like Wikipedia’s definition of “neutrality.” I think that providing people with just the facts is a good policy. People should be informed by factual information and then using that newly acquired information they should formulate their own opinions about a topic. Neutrality ensures you’re only providing the reader with knowledge and information that is not associated with a particular side. Remaining neutral when discussing a topic, specifically hot button issues, is important for the maintenance of a reliable, unbiased source like Wikipedia. I think that Wikipedia is a good starting point when one beings to research a topic. I think it provides a great outline and structure for what one should expect to learn and know about a topic. The basics are oftentimes in Wikipedia articles; however, they are not always comprehensive and some information is inevitably left out. Since it is not peer reviewed by academic professionals, occasionally there are some errors or biases. Overall, I use Wikipedia quite a bit when trying to obtain quick reliable information about a topic. When it’s time to do in depth research, however, I think Wikipedia is both limiting and helpful. It is limiting because it is likely that the information on the page is not in depth, well researched, or expert information on the topic. Therefore, one must seek information elsewhere to find more information on a topic. It is helpful, however, because if you read something on the Wikipedia page that you are interested in, you can click on the source associated with that topic which could jump start your research process. I think that sources that Wikipedia excludes are peer reviewed primary sources and recent news articles. This could be a problem because there may be several peer reviewed primary sources that point towards a particular conclusion, however, no secondary peer reviewed sources may be available to cite. Also, recent news may be very relevant to a Wikipedia article but because news sources are rarely biased, it would not be acceptable to post on to Wikipedia. Furthermore, it is very difficult to find peer reviewed articles that are very recent or that are about a new hot button issue because the peer review process takes so long. I think that if Wikipedia was written 100 years ago the content would likely be mainly from newspapers. I think that the contributors may have been either people who wanted to joke online and contribute false information, or it was reserved for experts who could provide outlines and summaries about certain topics. 100 years from now I think that Wikipedia may become an officially peer reviewed process and be an acceptable source to cite for class papers.