User:StuckInThought/sandbox

Wikipedians often talk about "content gaps." What do you think a content gap is, and what are some possible ways to identify them?
A content gap is an unaddressed aspect of a topic, or in some cases, a completely unaddressed topic area. Content gaps might be identified by comparing Wikipedia with other reputable sources of information, consulting experts in the field, or questioning implicit assumptions or leaps of logic that previous authors have made that might reveal an area for deeper exploration.

What are some reasons a content gap might arise? What are some ways to remedy them?
Content gaps might exist on Wikipedia because Wikipedia is a patchwork of contributions from many authors, and as these contributors piece together their work, one missing area might go unnoticed. On the other hand, content gaps might also exist if an article is written primarily by a single author: in this case, it can take a fresh pair of eyes to identify some glaring questions that are unanswered or some implicit assumptions that the author makes that might need to be further elaborated on. In both cases of content gaps, having Wikipedians — particularly those who are extremely knowledgeable in a field — continually read and evaluate others' articles can help flag relevant content gaps.

Does it matter who writes Wikipedia?
Anyone can and should be able to contribute to Wikipedia. Even if some contributors may not be able to compose literary prose at a level that reads like the rest of Wikipedia, we should still value the contribution that is afforded by their knowledge, perspectives, and expertise, and other Wikipedians (specifically, those who are copyeditors) should help bring their content up to par. Similarly, even if a contributor adds content that is poorly cited or misinterprets another source (that they cite), other Wikipedians should go in and fix the citation or attribute the author's intended idea.

What does it mean to be "unbiased" on Wikipedia? How is that different, or similar, to your own definition of "bias"?
At a sentence level, to be unbiased means to present no information that cannot be attributed to a verifiable external source, and to present it in a way that does not attempt to coat facts with descriptions or modifiers that convince the reader to think a certain way about the topic. When aggregated across sentences into paragraphs and entire articles, to be unbiased means to accurately represent differing viewpoints, assigning "due weight" to each viewpoint in a manner proportional to the general consensus on the topic in the existing body of literature. An article does not necessarily have to balance the positives and negatives of the topic (for example, if the overwhelming academic opinion on an issue is that it is detrimental for society, the article need not pretend that the topic's benefits carry the same weight as its detriments), but it must be able to reflect the viewpoint towards the topic in the body of verifiable literature, rather than the viewpoint held by that specific Wikipedia contributor. This definition of unbiasedness can be difficult to achieve — after all, at a what point does has a Wikipedian read enough sources to determine that the pro/con split is 70/30, versus 60/40 or 80/20? — but collaborating with other Wikipedians can help the article reach this balance.

For the most part, this definition is similar to my own definition of "bias", but "bias" in a Wikipedia article may not be intentional: it could simply be a result of the author piecing together a draft in multiple sittings and not taking care to balance the research they find in different research sessions, or it could be a poorly patched together result of several Wikipedians. On the other hand, my own bias might be more intentional: I would probably be more deliberate when introducing bias in order to convince my audience of a certain perspective.

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

 * Yes, everything in the article is relevant to the topic
 * Nothing distracted me

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

 * Yes, the article is neutral; the article provides a sufficient discussion about how the ACS isn't considered a highly efficient charity, and how economists have criticized the ACS for high overhead
 * Despite these criticisms, the criticism section seems to be appropriately sized (compared to the rest of the article)
 * The lede stays very objective and provides only factual information about their stated objective, headquarters, size, and a publication they oversee, suggesting that the authors weren't overly biased against the ACS (since the lede doesn't mention the ACS's shortcomings) nor overly biased towards the ACS (since the lede doesn't gush about the ACS's work)

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

 * As I talked above, it appears that the viewpoints are well-balanced
 * I was left a little curious as to whether the ACS has produced any major research products or breakthroughs, so perhaps this could be addressed — I had thought that the ACS did a lot more research/scientific work (especially with Dr. Brawley being the ACS science director) than this article would seem to portray/convey

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

 * There are sufficient citations, and all of citations that I randomly checked do work
 * Contributors have done a good job providing links to pages via the Internet Archive, especially since the ACS website has gone recent design modifications

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

 * Yes, all facts are referenced with appropriate references, and the sources are generally neutral
 * Information on activities of the ACS come mostly from the ACS website itself; this could perhaps use some additional sources
 * That said, the content being cited is fairly factual (history, founding date, etc.), so it's not serving to communicate a bias of any sort
 * Information on criticisms of the ACS come mostly from news outlets of varying sizes

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

 * Most activities that are detailed seem to end at around 2012, with a few exceptions
 * The activities that are detailed seem to focus heavily on fundraising and monetary values
 * Most of the sources seem to have been accessed around 2013
 * I could be wrong, but I thought the ACS did a lot more scientific work as well — perhaps this is an area that could be expanded upon?
 * Also could probably add information about more recent research work, fundraising campaigns, and criticisms/controversies

Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

 * It appears that at one point in Wikipedia's history, this article was much less neutral, and it was fixed (which fits with what I've said above) (c. 2013)
 * That said, one contributor asked why the page doesn't detail more of ACS's scientific work (which again fits in with comments I've made above)
 * There doesn't seem to be very active conversations going on; outside of a small remark about a section, the last substantive conversation that was had was in 2015 (of which there was only 1), and the majority of the talk seems to be from 2013

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

 * Rating: C-Class, low-importance
 * WikiProjects: Medicine, Organizations, United States

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
Our discussions of the ACS in-class have mostly centered on the positive work that the ACS is doing and less about controversies, but that's because we were approaching it more from the perspective of how the ACS is advancing cancer research. This article discusses these contributions less (which is something that should be added) and talks about controversies/criticisms more, which might be useful from the perspective of a potential donor looking into an organization that they're considering donating to.

Week 3 Assignments
Note: I had previously completed this assignment on time (see my contribution history), but I'm retrospectively added in a description of what I added.

Adding citations

 * IEX: added citation for the statement, "The exchange's market session runs from 9:30 am to 4:00 pm Eastern Time."
 * New York Tunnel Extension: added citation for the statement, "...the Long Island Rail Road use their respective halves to reach New York Penn Station."

Adding a factoid

 * Imatinib: added information about Novartis' reluctance to test the drug, based on information from Mukherjee
 * Various edits on the pages for Medi-Cal, New York City's Second Avenue Subway, and the City of New Haven, CT

Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information. Why?
Blog posts are considered poor sources of information because they represent the views of a single author. They often lack proper citations and may merely express unsubstantiated thoughts, opinion, beliefs, and perspectives of the author. Press releases are considered poor sources of information because they represent the views of a single company, and may be biased so as to present the relevant product, service, or subject matter in a way that favors the company.

It's important to note that while both blog posts and press releases may be poor sources of information to cite in a Wikipedia article, they may serve as useful launchpads for finding other, more reliable sources of information. For example, they may cite a fact that invites further research in other sources. Additionally, blog posts written by reputable authors, including experts in their field, may not be useful as sources to cite, but they may provide background or a different perspective on other sources they have authored in more reputable sources.

What are some reasons you might not want to use a company's website as the main source of information about that company?
A company's website will usually be biased towards the company; company websites seldom present facts, viewpoints, and arguments that may harm the company's legitimacy or credibility in any way. A company offering a drug, for example, would be required to state the side effects (as regulated by the FDA, I believe), but they may not want to advertise the fact that the drug's efficacy has not yet been sufficiently established, or that the effect it has is questionable. A company's website may be useful for citing firm facts (such as the intended effect of the drug, or the active ingredients of the drug), but it's important to supplement these facts with other sources that shed light on side effects and controversies.

What is the difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism?
A copyright violation is the unauthorized use of someone else's copyrighted work, even if they receive proper attribution. Plagiarism involves using someone else's work without attribution.

What are some good techniques to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism?
To avoid close paraphrasing, it's a good idea to not write the draft as you're looking at the source; read the source, process the relevant information, then close the source or look away from it while writing your own work. Keep track of who said what in the notes for your research project. Finally, when in doubt, cite any fact or opinion you find from another source, no matter how small.

Planned improvements

 * History of insurance coverage for cancer treatments, especially before "cancer insurance" was a thing
 * Any debate surrounding regulations on cancer insurance, especially with regard to the passage of healthcare legislation
 * Coverage, availability, and equity
 * Cancer coverage outside of the US
 * Less bias and expansion of the "concerns" section
 * Adding citations, because there are no citations right now! (and linking to other pages)

Sources to look at

 * American Cancer Society's website (cancer.org)
 * Dr. Otis Brawley's How We Do Harm

Week 5 Assignment (Cancer Insurance draft)
''Notes: In many instances, the language of the current article is unnecessarily verbose, unclear, or indirect. The current article also includes superfluous information that is either irrelevant to the topic or simply explains how insurance plans in general work. I've replicated the current article here but with many (most) parts shortened, clarified, or rewritten. Headings here are one level below what they would be on the actual article page.''

Cancer insurance is a type of supplemental health insurance intended to manage mitigate the financial risk associated with developing cancer. Cancer insurance reduces costs that are not covered by a patient's primary insurance policy, and often takes the form of lump-sum payments to the policyholder after a cancer diagnosis. As with other forms of insurance, cancer insurance is subject to premiums that may change depending on the risk associated with covering the disease.

Companies that provide cancer insurance include Aflac, Cigna, MetLife, AllState, Physicians Mutual, and American Fidelity, among many others.

Cancer diagnosis and treatment
Basic cancer insurance plans start by providing a lump-sum payment to a policyholder who has been diagnosed with cancer and subsequently files a claim. These lump-sum payments can vary from $5,000 to $100,000, and policyholders are free to utilize the funds in any way they wish, including towards : Most cancer insurance plans provide not just one lump-sum payment at time of diagnosis but also repeating payments (directly to the policyholder) to help cover costs that standard insurance plans do not cover, or to provide additional financial flexible by covering deductibles, co-pays, and co-insurance. These include costs associated with radiation, chemotherapy, surgery, hospitalization, and transportation. Cancer insurance differs primarily from standard insurance in that payments are made directly to the patient, rather than to a service provider such as a pharmacy or hospital.
 * Deductibles and co-pays not covered by standard insurance
 * Travel expenses, lodging, meals
 * Loss of income due to treatment
 * Child care

Cancer insurance plans cover costs for specific purposes, rather than being offered as a all-purpose lump-sum payment, including chemotherapy, radiation, surgery, and others. Some plans may cover a specified percentage of covered treatments. Unlike other forms of insurance, cancer insurance plans rarely require medical exams prior to coverage.

Some cancer insurance plans are offered to employees as an additional option when they purchase insurance through their employers; in this case, they may be billed directly through a payroll deduction. Employees whose group insurance plans do not include a cancer insurance option may purchase cancer insurance directly through insurers.

Lump-sum benefits may be subject to IRS taxes.

Cancer screening
Typical coverage benefits also provide policyholders with access to wellness tests that are meant for early detection of disease and monitoring other aspects of overall health. These tests include mammograms, Pap smear tests, and colonoscopies as well as many others. In many cases, those with cancer insurance must submit proof that they have received an exam to their cancer insurance provider. This matter is typically handled by the medical professional conducting the exam. Once the evidence of the exam has been submitted and verified, the insurance company will then provide the necessary financial support.

Portability of coverage benefits
Many cancer insurance plans are portable and can travel with the policyholder if they change jobs. If the cancer insurance plan was obtained through the employer and paid for through a payroll deduction, the individual will need to change their billing method.

Limited coverage of skin cancers
Skin cancer is the most commonly diagnosed form of cancer. The primary categories of skin cancer are basal-cell carcinoma (BCC), squamous-cell carcinoma (SCC), and melanoma. The first two, collectively known as non-melanoma skin cancers (NMSC), are highly unlikely to metastasize and comprise the majority of skin cancer diagnoses.

Many cancer insurance plans do not offer benefits for policyholders diagnosed with these non-melanoma skin cancers, or a large share of cases that are frequently called cancer. Other plans that provide both initial-diagnosis payments and recurring payments may not provide a lump-sum benefit for the initial diagnosis of a non-melanoma skin cancer.

Limited range of covered illnesses
Some cancer insurance plans cover only those costs associated with cancer itself. Under these plans, costs associated with any non-cancer illness that was directly or indirectly induced or complicated by cancer are not covered. For example, even though lung cancer increases risk of pneumonia, medical costs related to treatment of pneumonia that occurs after a cancer diagnosis would not be covered by a cancer insurance plan.

Other cancer insurance plans may only cover costs that arise after a patient has developed cancer proper. Policyholders do not receive benefits if they are detected with pre-malignant symptoms or other conditions that show the potential for malignancy.

Limitations on outpatient treatment
Some cancer insurance plans only cover costs related to inpatient care, even though some forms of treatment may require outpatient care. Under these plans, cancer treatment given to a patient after they have left a hospital, including radiation and chemotherapy, may not be covered.

Pre-existing conditions
While cancer insurance plans have varying definitions of pre-existing conditions, they generally agree in that they impose restrictions on individuals who have already been diagnosed with cancer at time of enrollment. Some plans may not provide benefits for costs incurred due to a pre-existing condition during the first twelve months of coverage. Other plans may render patients completely ineligible if they have ever been diagnosed with certain forms of cancer, AIDS, or HIV.

Limitations on double coverage
Cancer insurance is a form of supplemental insurance that is meant to cover gaps in a patient's primary insurance plans, but in some instances, primary insurance plans provide cancer coverage benefits that overlap with those of the supplemental cancer insurance plan. While some cancer insurance plans will pay benefits no matter what the primary insurance plan pays, some primary insurance plans may include a coordination of benefits clause that prohibit double payment. Other cancer insurance plans may stipulate that patients cannot receive double benefits.

Coverage waiting periods
Some cancer insurance plans have provisions that prevent the policyholder from receiving benefits during a period after initial enrollment; this length is frequently thirty days. Some plans stipulate that if a policyholder is diagnosed with cancer in the first thirty days of coverage, their benefits are significantly reduced and coverage will subsequently be terminated.

Alternatives to cancer insurance
Cancer insurance is a specific type of critical illness insurance, which covers policyholders in case they are diagnosed with cancer or suffer from a stroke or heart attack. Critical illness insurance is similar to cancer insurance in many ways: both are supplemental insurance plans meant to work in conjunction with a standard insurance plan, and both generally provide lump-sum payments to patients. Critical illness insurance offers a broader coverage range than that of cancer insurance, which may be more attractive to some patients depending on their individual health risks.

Cancer patients enrolled in a Medicare plan may be able to cover remaining costs through a Medigap or Medicare supplement plan.

What do you think of Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality"?
Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality" is incredibly important towards ensuring that Wikipedia continues to be a reliable source of information that is accessible towards a diverse audience that holds different beliefs and comes from global backgrounds

I've been especially intrigued by the importance of providing "due weight" to different viewpoints — the idea that Wikipedia articles should represent viewpoints in a manner proportional to the viewpoints' representation in reliable sources. Since most Wikipedians contribute to an article, rather than compose an entire article, it can take extensive understanding of what others have already written, coordination with other Wikipedians, and the ability to isolate one's own biases from what the literature concludes in order to ensure that the end product of the collaborative efforts maintains the required balance.

I'd imagine that this balance between different viewpoints is even more difficult to achieve for topics that are currently controversial and under active political discourse: when the media is constantly overdramatizing every single turn of the debate, when pundits draw grandiose conclusions from the outcome of one new study or one special election, when political leaders bend the facts to fit the narrative he wishes to forge, it can be difficult, even impossible, to gauge which viewpoints are considered "majority" viewpoints and which are considered "minority" viewpoints, and thus represent these viewpoints in the right proportion in the Wikipedia article. In this regard, it might be best to tackle the Wikipedia articles for these topics after the media buzz has died down, after the controversies settle and after the fact separates from sensationalism.

What are the impacts and limits of Wikipedia as a source of information?
By design, Wikipedia crowdsources the information it contains, which serves both as one of its greatest advantages over other sources of information and as one of its limitations. People come to Wikipedia because it will provide a one-stop source of information, instead of having to consult several different websites. People come to Wikipedia because they know the information will be, to the extent that it's possible, unbiased — it's reflected in the gray color scheme the website has always had, the Arial/Helvetica font that the website has always opted for. Both of these characteristics that make Wikipedia so special are very much a result of Wikipedia's crowdsourced nature: the neutrality and the diversity of perspectives on Wikipedia are hard to find on other websites on the internet, many of which are run by for-profit companies with a vested interest in advancing a certain goal. In today's world, whether all forms of technology — television, the internet, smartphones — are commercialized towards the interests of media conglomerates, Wikipedia has a profound impact in serving as the one source that is guaranteed to remain independent.

Wikipedia's strict guidelines for neutrality, verifiability, and the absence of original research protect against any potential conflicts of interest, but they also slow down the process by which information makes it into Wikipedia. For certain niche topics with little active academic research or few verifiable sources of information, this can also result in small articles (see my answer to the next question). Additionally, the very crowdsourced nature of Wikipedia also induces skepticism in some categories of readers (elementary school teachers especially!), and for good reason, since it never hurts to read Wikipedia (or anything, for that matter) with an eye of skepticism.

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?
Wikipedia's requirement for reliable, published sources excludes mostly aural or visual information that happens in the moment: TV clips (that aren't subsequently published online), lectures (whose information can't be found elsewhere), and eyewitness evidence. This has different implications for different types of articles: for articles about more about controversial topics, this ensures that the content of the page doesn't become too sensational, and for articles about historical subjects and subjects that are focus of continuing academic research, these requirements ensure that every sentence is reputable and accurate. However, there are certain subjects that may be neither; these may be niche interests that aren't of interest by the academic community, nor are they the subject of constant media scrutiny, leading to a lack of "reliable, published sources". In these cases, it can be argued that some information that is less accurate is more desirable to little-to-no information that is more accurate, illustrating one instance in which Wikipedia's source requirements may cause problems.

If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, how might its content (and contributors) be different? What about 100 years from now?
If Wikipedia were written 100 years ago, it would be much easier to ensure that the content meets the core requirements of neutrality, verifiability, and no original research, but there would also be far fewer contributors. Without the internet, there would probably be a centralized location that contributors would need to meet (to collaborate and publish iterations of what's essentially an encyclopedia), or contributors would need to correspond via mail. In both of these cases, contributors would like only go through the trouble of adding information that they have read in verifiable sources. After all, part of the reason why so many protections and guidelines are needed today is the sheer ease and speed with which any average Wikipedia reader can edit any article on Wikipedia. One hundred years ago, editing Wikipedia would have been a greater time commitment that most readers simply wouldn't have had.

Given the pace of technological advancement, it's difficult to predict how Wikipedia's content will change 100 years from now. I can foresee a future in which all of consciousnesses are connected to the internet, and our audiovisual observations instantaneously update a global database of objective information. Under this situation, contributing to Wikipedia would be even more widespread, and anyone will be a contributor. Ideally, if the technology that updates the database is flawless, then there will be no need for verifiability requirements, but it will take an editorial team to ensure that the information that does appear on the page provides due representation to each side of the issue.