User:OntyHam/sandbox

Week 5: Add citation and copyedit
On Feb. 9th, 2019 added a sentence and textbook reference to Groundwater recharge to further expand the definition of recharge.


 * "Groundwater recharge also encompasses water moving away from the water table farther into the saturated zone."

March 22nd


 * new sandbox made specifically for article

Week 13: Reflective Essay:
One of the most unique features of the Wikipedia assignment is the interactive element. It was interesting being exposed to the side of Wikipedia that I had never experienced before; the talk pages, the sandboxes, the dialogue between community members. The level of interaction that takes place behind any given article brought some intimidation when I began exploring the various aspects of Wikipedia through the exercises. Beginning with adding a citation and copyediting, I had to be comfortable with providing feedback to an individual’s or group of individuals’ work who may have more experience than me in the given topic. This was where the modules helped me to take a systematic approach to reviewing and choosing what articles to review. By keeping the 5 pillars of Wikipedia in mind and choosing a lower-quality article, it was surprisingly easy to objectively view an article and see what could be added or improved. Also, for the copyedit exercise I chose to add to the groundwater recharge article because I had recently taken a course in physical hydrogeology. Thus, I had knowledge on the topic and a Wikipedia approved reference (the textbook for the course) to help me.

Contributing to an interactive platform is something I find valuable about the Wikipedia assignment, and unfortunately due to my limited contributions to Wiki aside from my reviews and critiques of other’s work the interaction has been unidirectional. When I do a piece of work, I save the written portion for the final step after I have completed research and gained an idea of what my article, report etc is going to look like. If I completed the bulk of my research earlier then I could have contributed more to my sandbox and possibly brought work into the active platform. Despite beginning research into my topic of autogenic succession well in advance, with the demands of school I did not complete the amount of research necessary for me to draft properly referenced sections of my article in time for peer review.

The final element that is novel to this assignment has been the type of sources that editors and Wiki expect us to use. For my entire undergrad it has been preached that primary sources were required, and I think this speaks to the differences between communicating science to an academic and public audience. I agree with Wiki’s stance on the types of sources being used because a single piece of primary research simply does not hold the same weight as a systematic review or a textbook. In the past, when I wrote a report the person evaluating it was well-versed in the content, so a peer-reviewed piece of literature wasn’t required. The point of those assignments was for the student to learn how to dissect and analyse a scientific piece of literature. With Wiki, the aim is to bring together well-documented facts in a way that is concise and useful for a broad audience. Thus, it has been interesting to see how the intention behind a piece of work changes the process that goes in to it. As a fourth-year student I appreciate being exposed to different types of assignments and I value the approach that this Wikipedia assignment has required us to take, even if I feel like I haven’t taken full advantage of what the platform has to offer for my work.

Evaluating an Article:
Arctic methane emission:


 * undue weight
 * stale URL
 * not neutral
 * too close to climate change to edit???

Avoided Deforestation Partners*


 * not neutral intro, give facts/stats and avoid predictions
 * hyperlink to a page about deforestation if want to talk about numbers
 * mentioned in talk page that a link and more neutral approach would be better

Muskeg (c-class)

 * needs additional citations
 * create new article to build off this? allowed?

Campur formation (stub)

 * just a stub
 * could add dates of formation, fossils contained within etc
 * CAN STUBS BE USED?

Gustav Group

 * contains Hidden Lake Formation (stub)
 * mentioned in papers --> not sure what is
 * group of geological formations?

Whisky Bay Formation

 * related to Gustav group
 * geological formation



1)What is a content gap, what are possible ways to identify them?
What is a content gap


 * info not available thru wiki

2)Reasons why content gap arises? Ways to remedy them?
Arise


 * lack of reliable sources
 * search too broad or too acute
 * new idea/topic
 * topics ppl don't know a lot about (small field of experts who may not be interested in wiki writing)

Remedy


 * get diverse group of writers
 * use talk pages of WikiProjects
 * get students to write articles
 * encourage experts to write
 * class project

3)Does it matter who writes Wikipedia:

 * should have basic background in research methods?


 * don’t necessarily need to be independent; need neutrality and access to sufficient resources to ensure notability


 * avoid conflict of interest; researcher shouldn’t use on paper as sources
 * lots of editors --> community knowledge not individual
 * resembles peer review process

What should matter


 * COI, expertise or xp w/ research

to build up a real knowledge of a topic going to go beyond Wikipedia, a starting point, could be misleading but further research should steer you more true

4)What is being unbiased in wiki? How is it diff or similar to own definition of "bias"? (RECALL: must use primary research for our articles)

 * impartial tone
 * use reliable sources
 * can't simply do 50/50 for opposing view points, give due weight

Experts not always correct

Finalizing Topic

 * Competition-colinization trade-off
 * Disjunctive Population

Autogenic succession
Coral reefs

Soil bacteria

Review of factors in succession, differences between succession and community "belts"


 * use for primary sources; build base of early research concerning the term and its use

Lead section

History of related research (background, or context)

Findings and evidence

Alternative hypotheses or conflicting evidence

Impact and implications

Peer Review 1:
"Hi Lakhdeep, solid start to the content needed for the LOI article. I am unsure of the reliability of the first resource because it seems to be a website run by the author which may lead to a lack of peer review. I do like the recency of your sources as well as how you've included applications of LOI outside of just earth/environmental science (i.e for concrete). For the future, I would try to replace the first source (or if you can have another peer-reviewed source backing it up) as well as edit the "Theory" paragraph for some simple grammatical changes - I find reading out loud helps me. Strong progress on the article -- ~"


 * here is a link to the sandbox/talkpage

Peer Review 2:
"The "Factors Affecting Groundwater" recharge seems to rely heavily on future predictions and trends; given the controversy over climate change, I feel trying to find present-day trends to serve as evidence for the factors would be beneficial. The concepts presented seem backed up and so to ensure they aren't devalued taking a present-day approach may help. Also, using a more neutral tone with the avoidance of phrases such as "severe consequences" is another suggestion I have to strengthen this section. Lastly, the "Therefore" statements at the end of the paragraphs give the impression of some synthesizing on your behalf; I am sure this is what the research states so try to ensure it comes off as information from the literature. -- ~"


 * link to the article talk page where the peer review was given.