User:Zqxu98/sandbox

A content gap exits between 2 sections of a Wikipedia entry, and the gap diminishes readers' understanding of the context because there should be a transition, providing necessary knowledge for readers to understand the following material. A content gap can also be seen as a high importance entry which is not complete and whose content gap needs to be filled in order to make it a good article. Ways to identify content gaps: a. read an article and look for places where you should a transition would be needed to understand the next section b. find out what class the article belongs, if it is a low quality article of high importance, there might be some content gaps.

a. A few editors edited the article and none of them are experts. b. Too many editors have contributed to the article, but they failed to cooperate. Remedy: a. identify what kind of transition is needed. If it need you to introduce another subtopic, read some articles on that first, and then write the explanation in your own words to help readers understand.

To be unbiased is to be neutral. For example, if I'm a huge supporter of vaccination, I would probably write all the benefits of it; if I'm a intense opponent, the opposite would happen. These situations are too extreme because every coin has two sides. In order to be unbiased, I should mention both benefits and risks and give them equal weight. My understanding of bias is different than that of Wikipedia. Since all articles on Wiki are based on existing resources, and some articles may discuss different point of view, so Pillar two requires editors to present those point of views equally. I thought as long as I'm not biased, then the article will be unbiased. However, I need to realize that sometimes published source can also be biased in some ways. (Confirmation bias)

Late closure causes new words or phrases to be attached to the current clause. For example, "John said he would leave yesterday" would be parsed as John said (he would leave yesterday), and not as John said (he would leave) yesterday (i.e., he spoke yesterday). Minimal attachment is a strategy of parsimony: The parser builds the simplest syntactic structure possible (that is, the one with the fewest phrasal nodes). . Using an example from Traxler's textbook, the sentence "The burglar blew up the safe with the rusty lock" is ambiguous, so people tend to choose the simpler structure for semantic processing. As a result, people will go with the meaning that it is the rusty lock that blew up the safe; however, this meaning doesn't make sense. Therefore, our tendency towards minimal attachment sometimes does make processing faster and easier, but in some situations the will lead to incorrect interpretation.