User:Sj.will/sandbox

Content Gap(Week2)
I think that a content Gap is when there is missing information within in article. Missing information that is relevant to the topic and is easily missed for the article feels incomplete. Some ways I believe these gaps can be identified are; to investigate the existing information, and to assess the relevance of this information. When reading an article, if you leave with more questions than answers then there is definitely a content gap. A content gap may arise due to ignorance or intentional motives due to bias. There can also be cases where certain things are omitted intentionally. To challenge or try to remedy these gaps is to encourage the constant review and editing of articles. Also, you can try to engage professionals on certain topics to confirm the quality of information.

Who writes an article can definitely matter;however only to some extent. Wikipedia allows anyone to edit and contribute to articles in order for all types of information to be accessed. It would be ideal to have professionals/experts to write on all of these topics, but that is unrealistic if not impossible. To gain the most knowledge possible, Wikipedia must allow a variety of people access to the platform.

My definition of bias is when someone writes/speaks about a topic with concrete pre-conceived ideas. These ideas influence everything this person will add to an article if they are not careful and open minded. This is why persons who choose to join the Wikipedia community and participate in the editing of these articles must be "unbiased". Their only intention should be to inform, not to persuade readers in relation to any topic.

Sources and Plagiarism(Week 4)
Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable  information because they are manipulated to benefit those who create or support them. Blog posts are online platforms that individuals use to express opinions, sell products, and ultimately serves as an advertising platform. These opinions, that are written informally as casual updates, cannot be taken as fact because for information to be considered credible or reliable, authors would have to have some sort of background and knowledge to speak on topics. Blog posts can be done by anyone, as long as they know how to set up a website and are able to attract attention towards their page. This uncertainty makes Blog posts a poor source of information for any research project.
 * Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information. Why?

Press releases are not reliable sources of information because the information provided is not thorough. Those who are answering questions during press conferences tend to omit relevant information, and what is provided is known to be rehearsed.These individuals are trained to manipulate questions to benefit themselves. Thus, Viewers and listeners of these press conference do not get the entire story. The one most prominent goal of any website is to promote and make a business look exceptional to the public. This means that every aspect of a website is welll thought out and placed to manipulate those who visit. Many individuals do not pay attention to details; however, tools like color, length of information, button placement, and tabs can all be used to guide a person through a website. This leads them to click on certain things, and pay attention to the utopia created or put forth by the website. There would not be any highlights of the failures of the company because that would be self-depreciating. A website is meant for the elevation of a company, this is why these websites cannot be a main source of information because they are misleading and are a direct example of biased information. Copyright violation is when you use someones work without giving them credit with intent. Plagiarism however, whether intentional or not is the use of someone else’s work and claiming it as your own. Copyright is something that is acquired by a holder of information which serves as a guarantee that anyone who tries to use their work without permission can be punished by law. Plagiarism is something that is just common knowledge or considered "known" in the academic community. Neglecting this code goes against academic integrity and thus places plagiarism in a category that is much more ethical than copyright infringement. Copyright gives someone permission to use their work, publish it, and show it to the world without the uncertainty of someone else capitalizing on their time and dedication to whatever they have produced. The difference between these two similar entities is that someone can plagiarize without it being considered copyright infringement. This is because with plagiarism the information was given to the public, there was no warning of using the information, as such it wouldn't be considered copyright infringement. To avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism, persons must read sources before writing. Many times researchers will read a paragraph and then return to their paper most times rewording but stating the exact same information, thus committing some form of plagiarism. Reading through first helps to avoid this because all the information is read and processed then is when the researcher can reiterate what was "learned" instead of what was just read and crammed. Another technique is to assess how much of he original material is needed when direct quoting or paraphrasing. It is one thing to have a few sentences and another to copy and paste large amounts of information. Even though it may be cited, it makes no sense writing a paper that will have large chunks of information directly from other sources. As mentioned it is important to cite every quote used in your work, this means that a reference page of some sort must be included. Readers must know where the information comes from in order for them to trust the information that is being provided.
 * 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?

Charlotte Corday last edit was 2015. Article is about the woman who murdered Marat in his bathtub. There isn't much information on her such as background and other biographic details, just the actual act she committed. There can be information added about the death as well, but my main focus would be on her life. I found some articles concerning how her act influenced things politically, and the changing views of women at that time. I have started some research and found some things on how her crime ignited a new gender system.

L'Ami du peuple last edit was 2016 on the talk page. I think I can really expand on the information, and find the actual writings by Marat. There is little information, thus there is opportunity to find and add more info. Impact and influence for example has limited information, and I believe that the writings had a lot of influence on the people of France. I also think that there is hardly any information on the actual contents of the papers, so i'm sure I can find some more information in relation to that.

Finalizing a topic(Week 5)
For the Charlotte Corday article there is biographical information that seems to be missing. I plan to find more information about her personal life, because her past can be linked to the decisions made; which ultimately resulted in her incentive to kill Marat. I think that there can be additions to the "political influence" section of the article; as mentioned last week; the gender influence her actions may have had at the time. This ties into the last section of the article which is the aftermath, that I may link with the influence on gender. For the L'Ami du Peuple article I will try to find what the papers actually contained and give some examples so that readers can get an idea of why the papers were so influential back then. There is a photo of the paper in the article but hardly any information regarding actual content. Why did it resonate with the people of France, who was targeted exactly? Questions I am hoping to answer whilst translating one of his original documents.

Sources:Charlotte Corday

Kindleberger, Elizabeth R. “Charlotte Corday in Text and Image: A Case Study in the French Revolution and Women's History.” French Historical Studies, vol. 18, no. 4, 1994, pp. 969–999., www.jstor.org/stable/286725.

Thomas, Chantal. “HEROISM IN THE FEMININE: THE EXAMPLES OF CHARLOTTE CORDAY AND MADAME ROLAND.” The Eighteenth Century, vol. 30, no. 2, 1989, pp. 67–82., www.jstor.org/stable/42705725.

Photo: Charlotte Corday (1768-93) on the way to her execution in 1793, engraved by Theodor Meyer Heine (engraving). (2014). In Bridgeman Images (Ed.), Bridgeman images. London, UK: Bridgeman. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fiu.edu/login?url=http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/bridgemanwel/charlotte_corday_1768_93_on_the_way_to_her_execution_in_1793_engraved_by_theodor_meyer_heine_engraving/0

Sources:L'Ami du Peuple

"L' Ami Du Peuple Aux Fran." Google Books. N.p., n.d. Web.

Les ennemis selon L’Ami du peuple, ou la catégorisation identitaire par contraste », ''Mots. Les langages du politique'' [Online], 69 | 2002, Online since 13 May 2008, connection on 19 February 2017. URL : http://mots.revues.org/10023

Week 6
Wikipedia describes "neutrality" as the act of not taking a side, however not ruling out the idea that a neutral individual does not have a side. This means that although they do not choose a side, they do indeed have one themselves. I think that this definition is correct in that it addresses the idea of shying away from bias which is associated with picking a side. I also agree with the idea that an individual does indeed have a side, but neutrality is something that is chosen in order to avoid further conflict. I don't believe that there is such a thing as not having a position for any particular topic; the choice arises when one has to actually stand for it, then is when one would choose whether to choose a side or distance themselves through neutrality. Throughout my academic life I have always been told to avoid Wikipedia, due to the fact that anyone can edit information. Wikipedia as an online platform has great impact in that people from all over the world, with access to different information all on a specific topic, are able to do so without hesitation. This freedom; however, is what limits Wikipedia as a reliable source. If every article was reviewed by professionals, then the site would be limitless, but that can be considered quite impossible. Wikipedia can be used as a way to find sources because if the information provided is credible, there will always be sources included where one can check the legitimacy of the information that was added by any person. Al materials must be attributable to reliable, published sources. This excludes sources like blog posts, personal websites, editorials etc. This limits a vast amount of infromation for researchers. There is a lot of information on topics out there; however, finding information that is legitimate is the true task for any researcher. I don't think that this would create a problem, I think it is the only thing keeping Wikipedia from becoming a site filled with bogus ideas and information. If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, the content as well as the contributors would be different. It is like trying to get along with an older individual; A teenager compared to someone who is over 60 or even just over 40 share differing opinions on certain topics. This generation gap would affect the content as well as the layout of an article. Today we have more access to information than what would have been available 100 years ago and I think that there would have been limits to what could have been published back them due to some social conformities that existed during that time. Also, one main aspect is that the content would be limited; due to the fact that we have much more access to information through the internet than before.
 * What do you think of Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality"?
 * What are the impacts and limits of Wikipedia as a source of information?
 * 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?
 * If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, how might its content (and contributors) be different? What about 100 years from now?

Charlotte Corday
Corday's act served as a turning point of views held of women during the revolutionary period. During the revolution women were given a newfound power resulting from the necessity of them being increasingly involved in the revolution. It is described that Corday's act served as a "Consolidation of a new system of gender relations during the revolution." This is due to the idea of her entering into a new "public sphere" which challenged gender norms of this time period. It is suggested that this newfound power resulting from the revolutionary acts taking place among women led to the demise of some powerful women of this era including but not limited to Marie Antoinette, Olympe de Gouges, and Madame Roland. Corday's killing of such an influential leader during the revolution angered many people. Her actions were described by many as disquieting as well as transgression filled. This behavior left a lasting impression on male revolutionaries during that time because women were not at the forefront; yes they had a place in the revolution, but not enough to commit such a transcending act. Her vile killing of Marat served was considered a "arch-typically masculine statement" which shows that whether or not one would agree or disagree with her actions, it is guaranteed that the murder of Marat changed the political role or stance of women during the French Revolution.
 * The Revolution and Women

Corday's act transformed the idea of what a woman was capable of and to those who did not shun her for her act, she was a heroine. André Chénier for example wrote a piece in honor of Corday.

La vertu seule est libre. Honneur de notre histoire,          Virtue alone is free. Honor of our history,

Notre immortel opprobre y vit avec ta gloire,                    Our immortal opprobrium lives there with your glory,

Seule tu fus un homme, et vengeas les humains. Only you were a man, and avenged the humans.

Et nous, eunuques vils, troupeau lâche sans âme,          And we, vile eunuchs, a cowardly herd without a soul,

Nous savons répéter quelques plaintes de femme,          We know how to repeat a few complaints from a woman,

Mais le fer pèserait a nos dèbiles mains. But the iron would weigh our dear hands.

Upon her last request before being guillotined, her last wish was to be painted. The intent to reveal her true self in contrast to what was being said or associated with her.

L'ami Du peuple
Paper Translation:

August 1792

To the french patriots

My dear compatriots;

A man who has long been fair to you, escapes from his underground retreat to try to put victory in your hands.

Jealous,  to prove to you that he is not unworthy of -your confidence; Let him remind you that he Is still under the sword of tyranny, for you too have revealed the terrible machinations of your atrocious Enemies.

He predicted that your armies would be led to the slaughter house by their perfidious generals, and three shameful defeats have signaled the opening of the campaign. He predicted that the barriers of the kingdom would be delivered to the enemy and already the enemy has departed for the second time from the city of Bavai. He predicted that the rotten majority of the national assembly betrayed and the perfidy of his last two decrees, by bringing public indignation to a climax, has at last brought the cruel but too necessary events of that day.

He predicted that you would be eternally sold by your fellow servants, the officials, till you shed blood to save the country, and you have just put the seal on this sad truth.

My dear fellow-citizens, believe a man who knows all the intrigues and conspiracies of conspiracies, and who for three years has never ceased for a moment to watch over your salvation.

The glorious day of the 10th of August, 1792, may be decisive for the triumph of liberty, if you know how to profit by your advantages. A great number of the Satellites of the despatch, the enemy implacable enemy, seem dismayed, but they do not have to return from their trances, and to rise again more terrible than ever. Remember the procedure of the chatelet on the events of the 5th  and 6th of October. After having poured your blood to draw the patron of the 'abyss. Tremble at seeing you torn from your beds in the darkness of the night by a fierce soldier, and being thrown into the dungeons, where you will be abandoned of your wishes, To make them perish on the scaffold.

Dread the reaction, I repeat to you, your enemies will not spoil you, if the ten returns to them. Thus, no quarter, you are lost without return, if you do not hasten to bring down the rotten members of the municipality, the department, all the anti-patriot justices of the peace, and the most gangrenous members of the national assembly; I say of the National Assembly, and by what fatal prejudice, what fatal respect would they be spared! One ceases to say. That, however bad it may be, it is necessary to rally round it, it is to say that it is necessary to assemble on the mine converted under your steps; And restore the care of your dreams to villains determined to consume your ruin; Consider that the assembly is your most formidable enemy; as long as it is on foot, it will work to ruin you; And as long as you live with arms in your hand, she will seek to flatter you. She will seek to flatter you and fall asleep by false promises. She will engineer herself dully to chain your efforts, and when she has come to the end, she will deliver you to the sword of the bribed satellites: Remember the Champ de Mars.

Nobody is more than a mere wearer of the blood; but, to prevent it from shedding its waves, I urge you to shed some of it. To bestow the duties of humanity with the care of public safety, I propose to decimate the con-revolutionary members of the municipality, the justices of the peace, the department, and the national assembly. If you back down, Think that the bloodshed in this day will be in pure loss, and that you have done nothing for

-freedom.

But, over all things, hold the king, his wife, and his son as a hostage, and until his defiant judgment is pronounced, and be shown four times daily to the people. And as it depends on him to remove our enemies forever, declare to him that under a fortnight the Austrians and the Prussians are not twenty leagues from the frontiers to no longer repay, his head will roll at his feet. Demand that he trace this terrible judgment with his own hand, and let him pass it over to his accomplices. It is up to him to get rid of it.

Take also the ex-ministers, and hold them in chains.

That all the counter-revolutionary members of the Parisian staff be supplicated, all the anti-patriotic officers expelled from the battalions: disarm the rotten battalions of Saint-Roch, the Filles Saint-Thomas, Notre-Dame, Saint-Jean In Greve, of the Red Children. Let all patriotic citizens be armed, and abundantly provided with ammunition.

Lastly, to bring back the decree which innocent the perfidious Mottié, demand the convocation of a national convention to defy the king, and reform the constitution; and, above all, that its members should not be appointed by an electoral body, but by the primary assemblies.

Have the immediate dismissal of all the foreign regiments and Switzerland, who have been enemies of the revolution, decreed.

Finally, put to price by the assembly of your atrocious oppressors, the fugitive, treacherous and rebellious Capets. Tremble and tremble, to let a single escape escape, which the tutelary genius of France has led you out of the abyss, and secure your liberty,

Paris, this 10th of August, 1792.

MARAT, Friend of the People.


 * The word enemy/enemies is used in Marat's papers approximately 2113 times.