User talk:Autumn.cunningham/sandbox

Reflective essay
During the article evaluation, I learned quite a bit about Wikipedia as a whole. The first thing I learned was that not every page on Wikipedia is a finished source. There may be information missing on some subjects as well as they could be biased. Misinformation is another thing that can be added into Wikipedia by mistake. I also learned that it is difficult to try to sort out what information to allow and what information to not when adding and editing an article. I approached the critique of the article I selected with the help of my group members. We had met one day and decided on what information to get rid of, condense, and add. We decided what to add to our chosen article by deciding what information was not bias and of importance. We also looked at other artists’ articles to see what information they have on their pages. For my part of editing David Salle’s article, I edited the introduction, combined work and other works, and edited some references. They were a valuable contribution because much of the information that was originally on the page, was spread out. Compared to earlier versions, I believe the article is easier to understand and read.

Our class did do a peer review of another group’s article individually. We had a guide in which I followed to review another group’s article. The article my group needed to peer review was Lorna Simpson. What I contributes was an edit to the introduction, a combination or work and other works, and editing some references. What my peers recommended I change on the article is what we had discussed when we met as a group. This discussion became what I edited.

I have not received feedback from other Wikipedia editors. I believe this is because we decided to edit the article in a sandbox. What I learned from contribution to Wikipedia is that Wikipedia is something that is overwhelming, at first. I believe this to be because of how the website is set up for editing an article. There are many tabs that seem to be unnecessary and confusing. The main thing that I was confused about during this process, was how to access what was needing to be accessed. Primarily, the sandbox and how to add a new one. I looked to the tutorial, google, and YouTube for help. I found my answer through a peer that was confused as well. We figured it out together.

I am not sure what to compare this Wikipedia assignments to in the past besides writing an essay as we have done in the past for other art history classes. I am not sure which is better of the two options. With writing an essay, it gets completed within a couple days. The Wikipedia assignment takes weeks. I learned more about research, though, through the Wikipedia assignment because it is based on sources. A downfall with the Wikipedia assignment is I am not sure what is wrong and right in what steps I am doing. With a paper, I feel more secure with my process. Wikipedia can be used to improve public understanding of my topic because it is one of the first resources that come up when googling information on David Salle. It is important for Wikipedia to always be improved because of this. People know that it is not as well trusted as other sources; but, it can be once more changes happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autumn.cunningham (talk • contribs) 01:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)