User:Theicedancer/sandbox

=Assignment 1: Research Report on Wikipedia Comparisons=

Introduction
I had a bit trouble deciding my topics, as I knew that Wikipedia would provide me a plethora of information of things I am interested in it may not be the case for other encyclopedias. Since Wikipedia is commonly known to be a hub for subjects that are more pop culture, and less academic driven. So I scrolled through Tumblr and jotted some ideas that were not to obscure but interesting enough to research. I intended to do one of my favourite bands Bring Me the Horizon, but the other encyclopedias did not have any information on them.

Mermaid
Sources

"Mermaid." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 26 Sep. 2014. Web. 30 Sep. 2014. COLIN BLAKEMORE and SHELIA JENNETT. "mermaid." The Oxford Companion to the Body. 2001. Encyclopedia.com. 29 Sep. 2014

Search Process

I don't know much about mermaids, or mythology for that matter, but they are interesting. So I knew this topic could be easily searched, although some Wikipedia asked whether or not I was looking for the popular Disney film The Little Mermaid. But other than that it searched rather quickly with a substantial information on both sites. I search 'mermaid' on the Wikipedia search bar, then that exact same word thing on the Encyclopedia.com

Choosing Process

I choose to research mermaids, as Ariel is one my favourite Disney Princess', and I think nautical things are cool, which intertwines with my love for retro, and vintage. I think mermaids are both enchanting and enticing creatures, which reminded me one of my favourite songs. I knew that mythological creature can be searched in encyclopedias with no difficulty.

Initial Thoughts

It was pleasing to see that this search was pretty much seamless, as the mythical creature popped up as the first search result on both encyclopedia websites. I was not sure what to expect from the two sources, but they both gave insight on the history of mermaids. I found it quite useful on the Wikipedia article as the table of contents allowed for easy navigation, which gave a not only broke down the history, but a more pop culture look on the topic. It gave insight on human divers, cosplays, and hoaxes. Wikipedia would in turn be a better source if an individual was looking for the modern impact of mermaids, as well as providing the etymology of the term.

Wolf
Sources

"Gray wolf." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 24 Sep. 2014. Web. 30 Sep. 2014. Churcher, C.S.. "Wolf". The Canadian Encyclopedia.Toronto: Historica Canada, 2012. Web. 8 Mar 2012.

Search Process

I searched 'wolf' onto the Wikipedia search bar, which automatically redirected me to the page 'Gray Wolf'. I knew that The Canadian Encyclopedia would most likely give me substantial amount of information on this topic, as they do live in Canada. But the website just gave me a general page of wolf once I searched 'wolf' in the search bar.

Choosing Process

Wolves are beautiful animals, so I decided to search them. Plus I am a frequent user of the saying lone wolf, and wolves seem to be plastered on a lot of shirts these days, which gave me the idea to search them. Initial Thoughts

I thought that The Canadian Encyclopedia would break down the species of wolf, as Wikipedia did. Wikipedia automatically redirects to Gray Wolf once 'wolf' is searched. They also have a page of wolf, but instead uses the scientific name the Subspecies of Canis lupus which gives an overall rather than go in depth of each type. It was fascinating to see that Wikipedia allowed those various options, rather than one main article that would result in less information about the animal.

Turtle
Sources

"Turtle." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 22 Sep. 2014. Web. 30 Sep. 2014.

Ontario, B. (2013). Turtle. Retrieved from http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/51cbef1d7896bb431f69c789

Search Process

I searched 'turtle' in both the Wikipedia search bar, and The Encyclopedia of the Earth search bar. It came up quickly on both sites, with no confusion regarding species, or other related topics.

Choosing Process

I chose to search this animal as they are beautiful swimmers, and are lovely reptiles. I also used to have pet turtles, so I thought it be a good topic to chose.

Initial Thoughts

I thought that The Encyclopedia of the Earth might perhaps give more detailed or scholarly information, as it is a more specialized encyclopedia rather than general information. The two sources gave information describing the animal's body, and it's distinguishing features. But once again Wikipedia suggests other ideas, such as turtles as pets, or for cosmetic usage. The Encyclopedia of the Earth is focuses primarily on the scientific element of the reptile, so it may not give a variety of subtopics but it does give reliable facts on the animal itself.

Conclusion
Although Wikipedia has an enormous source of information, and is frequently updated, it is not a reliable source. Anyone could edit, which means that someone with little to no knowledge on a subject could edit an article however they please ( within the limit of Wikipedia rules of course). The editors are not properly sourced, as seen on the side bar when Cite this Page is clicked.The article is sourced as Wikipedia Contributors, but that does not give any insight on who edited the article, and what background they may have. This is in comparison with an encyclopedia that is more scholarly which is made of a core group of people who specialize in a particular field. If I were to do a research paper on turtles I could use one of the sources listed on the Wikipedia article page for additional information. But if I wanted to guarantee that my sources were solid, and fact based I could on a encyclopedia such as Encyclopedia Britannica, or Canadian Encyclopedia where the editor of the article is clearly stated. I could than search the name of the editor to find other information on the topic through their recommendations. This could be a professor who specializes in marine biology, and recommends a documentary or book. Wikipedia on the other hand may list of bunch of sources that may be speculated as wrong, or are out dated. Wikipedia does not have a stable group of knowledgeable people, whereas other encyclopedias act as sources that filter people to write intelligent articles.

=Assignment 2=

Introduction

For this assignment I chose to compare the two encyclopedia articles on turtles.

Summary of the Wikipedia Article

The article goes in depth with the subject matter, from their anatomy to conservation status.

Summary of the Second Encyclopedia (The Encyclopedia of Earth) 

The brief article gives a clear explanation turtles with the main focus on the animal's physical features and the species' conservation status.

Their respiration and senses is well explained with the use of a diagram aiding in the user's knowledge. A step by step process describes their nesting patterns

Compare and Contrast of the Two Encyclopedia Articles

The two encyclopedias analyzed at first glance seem to have multiple similarities. They both contain pictures with the sources attached- the pictures on the Wikipedia article requires one to click the caption for this additional information. Also, both encyclopedias consist of multiple links that direct one to other articles on the online encyclopedia. The two articles discuss a majority of the same information, such as their morphology and ecology,however the Wikipedia articles displays goes through the information in detail. They also both have internal links which direct one to other articles the encyclopedia features, so information of an unfamiliar topic can be read.

The differences in the articles are quite notable. Other than the fact that the Wikipedia article contains more information resulting in more headings and subheadings, the way the articles were written differs how a reader can easily attain them. The Encyclopedia of Earth is written like a textbook in way that it is able to guide the reader along. It also has brief sections with straight forward facts which not only makes it easier to read, but makes research a simple task. But, it does however lack a helpful tool which the Wikipedia article has, a table of contents. Although the The Encyclopedia of Earth article is brief a table of contents gives the user access to jump to particular sections quickly. Also, both articles contain pictures with their coordinating sources. The Encyclopedia of Earth has the source displayed right below the pictures, making it clear who should be given credit, whereas Wikipedia requires the user to click on the picture for the details about its source. The pictures featured in The Encyclopedia of Earth article are descriptive in a way that it uses diagrams and graphs to show the material in a visual manner.It was mentioned in the previous assignment that the Wikipedia article covered more pop culture oriented topics, such as the usage of turtles for food, traditional medicine, and cosmetics. So this may aid in expanding the user's knowledge beyond scientific facts.

In conclusion, the two articles are similar that they both contain various information scientifically and are user friendly. Their differences are in the way a user is able to navigate through the article, the detail in information and the overall format the article is displayed.

References and Contributors

The two article clearly state the references and/ or contributors. They also contain relevant and current information that may be easily accessed by readers. The articles are both written by experts of their field.

Wikipedia, like all their other articles, is cited as being written my Wikipedia contributors.Therefore one could not know the credentials of each individual who edited the page. But, the end of the article does have a thorough list of references. From a quick glance one can see that the sources range mostly from 2006-2012 and only a few dating from the late 90s. Although Wikipedia contributors are not a legitimate source, the list of references for this turtle article indicate that the sources used are in fact authoritative, such as National Geographic Oceans of Kansas Paleontology and Institute of Traditional Medicine. Although the last two sites may not come across as authoritative, with some research it seems that the Oceans of Kansas website is ran by Mike Everhart an individual who has received an education at  Fort Hays University and is the adjunct curator of Paleontology at the Sternburg Museum of Natural History .So, Wikipedia does have relevant references provided by contributors expert in their field.

The Encyclopedia of Earth lists two contributors in the beginning of the article both contributors are from the same institute- the Biodiversity Institute of Ontario. Although this the case the information is still good to use, as the source is from a reputable resource. From a quick search, it was found that the institute is located at the University of Guelph-one of the most research-intensive universities in Canada. The contributing author is Dr. Paul Herbert, who has received a Ph. D from Cambridge University and was the Chair of the Department of Zoology in 1990 at the University of Guelph.

The two encyclopedias exhibit reputable sources who are well-educated in their field. Since the Encyclopedia of Earth only indicates two authors further research is required if one wants book sources compared to the Wikipedia references which directly bring one to a source.

Article Assessments

In my opinion, I believe that the two articles are great to be used. It was noted in the previous assignment that although Wikipedia tends not to be directly written by professionals or experts in a particular field, it does direct one to other useful resources. This is beneficial for extensive research on a certain topic. They both provide excellent amount of information, even though The Encyclopedia of Earth does not have as much as the Wikipedia article, it is still well written and provides a nice starting point for ones research. It also credits the contributor as a specialist in the field; the reader can then research The Biodiversity Institute of Ontario and find other reputable and/ or authoritative individuals in the field. I personally do not think the either articles require more citations. The Encyclopedia of Earth article has the appropriate amount of in-text links which corresponds with the rest of the encyclopedia's format, more would make the article messy and difficult to navigate. The Wikipedia article is plentiful of internal and external links, along with it's list of references makes it ideal for those who are new to the subject. Also, both of the articles do not display any messages that indicate the article requires an improvement. The "history" page on the Wikipedia article is not lengthy and the changes seem to be updates on facts, fixing technological errors and nothing that seems controversial or of negative manner, such as arguments among users. The "talk" page however has a discussion going on the various international meanings on the words turtles, terrapins, and tortoises. There are also several posts discussing changes in formatting the page and a majority of the posts ask whether or not the correct terms are used and if the correct facts are being used in the article.

The Wikipedia article is lengthy, but provides additional information other than scientific facts. It also has a long list of references for further reading, whereas The Encyclopedia of Earth only provides various links to internal articles on the encyclopedia. It has a better navigation system with a table of contents, additional information for each picture and has a plethora of references for reading. The pages such as, "talk" and "history" allow users to be active while viewing the changes the article has grown, this helps distinguishes relevant and irrelevant information.

Additional Resources

Burroughs, Robert W. Fossils, Phylogeny, and Anatomical Regions : Insights Exemplified through Turtles. Austin: Geological Sciences
 * University of Texas at Austin,2013.Print.

Claes, Christopher A. A Geographic Information System Study of the Distribution of Recent and Fossil Reptiles with Respect to :ClimateAlbion, MI:Albion College, 2013. Print.

Cook, Julia. Sea Turtles: The Complete Guide for Beginners & Early Learning. East Olympia, Wash. : Reagent Press, 2013.Print.
 * de la Fuente, Marcelo, Juliana Sterli, and Ignacio Maniel. Origin, Evolution and Biogeographic History South America Turtles. Cham :
 * Springer, 2014.Print.

Ebenhack, Amanda. Health Care & Rehabilitation of Turtles and Tortoises.Ada, Oklahoma:Living Art Publishing,2012. Print.

Gibbons, Whit and Judy Greene. Turtles: The Animal Answer Guide. Baltimore: John Hopkins,
 * 2009. Print.

Jackson, Donald C. Life in a Shell: A Physiologist's View Of A Turtle.Harvard University Press, 2013. Print.

Kumar, Rajesh.Turtles, Tortoises and Terrapins. New Delhi: Random Publications, 2013. Print.

Lara Uc., Monica, Juan M. Rquez-Baron, and Rafael, Riosmena- Rodriguez. ''Successful Conversation Strategies for Sea Turtles: Achievements
 * and Challenges''. New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2014. Print.

Lindeman, Peter V. and Anders G. J. Rhodin. The Map Turtle and Sawback Atlas : Ecology, Evolution, Distribution, and Conservation. Norman :: University of Oklahoma Press,2013. Print.

Safina, Carl. Voyage of the Turtle: In Pursuit of the Earth's Last Dinosaur. New York: Halt,
 * 2006. Print.

Subba Rao, Madireddi V. Endangered: Turtles, Tortoises and Terrapins. Delhi: B.R. Pub, 2014. Print.