User talk:Csouc002/sandbox

Week 2
Chris: you posted your answers about the content gap in the wrong location. Please ask somebody in the class how to find your sandbox page so you can post your future assignments there. You added your answers on the content gap to the course's talk page - that is unacceptable. Please delete your answers from there and put your answers on your sandbox page. Alfgarciamora (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Week 2 Assignment 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 a gap of crucial information pertaining to a specific topic. Some ways to identify content gaps is to really think about the subsections a particular article should have. Once you have though of these possible subsection, check the article to see if all of these sections are accounted for and well represented.

What are some reasons a content gap might arise? What are some ways to remedy them? Some reasons why a content gap may occur from a lack of knowledge in the subject as a whole. For example in most unfinished scientific research there is a lack of knowledge or gap of content that prevents the whole picture from being apparent. Another cause may be from a lack of attention from the community to update the wikipedia pages.

Does it matter who writes Wikipedia? No, it does not matter who writes Wikipedia. Wikipedia writers are individuals who feel inspired to update a wide source of knowledge for the entire world to see. The mindset of these people are to expand the content of a specific topic they themselves are usually attracted to.

What does it mean to be "unbiased" on Wikipedia? How is that different, or similar, to your own definition of "bias"? To be unbiased on Wikipedia means to not place personal opinions in their own writings. Instead of writing with personal opinions Wikipedia encourages the strict use of facts when writing on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csouc002 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Professor Garcia: I am sorry for the confusion. I realize what my mistake was. It will not happen again. Csouc002 (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Week 4 Part 1
Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information. Why? Blog posts and press releases are poor sources of reliable information for many reasons. One of these reasons has to do with the lack of editing and publishing. As for blog posts, anyone can simple write whatever they choose to write. A blog post is an information chat about a topic regardless of how in-depth the blog goes. In most cases these blog writers do not use reliable sources in their posts. Another major issue is the bias within these article. Especially pertaining to the press, their goal is to persuade the public to think a certain way. This completely goes against what is taught by wikipedia as quality writing. Wikipedia tries they're best to promote a strictly fact based write up when editing. Blog writers tend to be bias in what they post as well. Since blog posters usually feel inspired towards a specific topic that is what they write about. This inspiration tells us that whoever writes the blog has a strong opinion about what it is they are writing about.

What are some reasons you might not want to use a company's website as the main source of information about that company? Like blog posts and press releases, company websites are biased; companies tend to try and persuade people that view their website to buy products or whatever information they are trying to sell. The intention of the company is displayed with quotes like “Better than the competition” where no evidence is shown as to why their product might be better. These companies rely on fallacies for marketing purposes, meaning that their information is skewed in order to make themselves look better. In order to acquire enough accurate information, you must look at other reliable sources of information such as unbiased articles, interviews, or reviews.

What is the difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism? Although both plagiarism and copyright violation are similar, they refer to two different actions. Plagiarism is claiming credit for a work or idea you did not come up with yourself, or using another individual’s work or idea without proper crediting. The boundaries of plagiarism are not always consistent because different people value different standards of morality and ethics. On the other hand, copyright violation is using another person’s work or idea without getting their permission first. Copyright laws give a copyright holder that only they can exploit as they please. For example, the copyright holder, usually the creator of the idea or work, can distribute, replicate, and display the work publicly. Furthermore, if an individual does not possess the rights to copyright and they either distribute, replicate, or display the work without permission then they are violating the law. To make it more clear, you can compare plagiarism and copyright violation as you would compare the construct of ethics and law, respectively.

What are some good techniques to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism? Most people have come across the term plagiarism, and many of those people know the definition of the term. However, a good majority of those individuals may not know how to avoid plagiarism. Some of the most important tips include: summarizing, paraphrasing, quoting, and citing. Summarizing is a technique in which an individual presents a condensed version of the original idea or text that emphasizes the main points in one’s own words. Paraphrasing is another way one can avoid plagiarism. To paraphrase means to write the original text in your own words. It is different from a summary because paraphrasing tends to be the same length as the original text, while summaries are a lot shorter. Paraphrasing does not simply mean to change the order of the words in a text, but it means that you must use your own new words. The third tip in avoiding plagiarism is to quote the original text when summarizing or paraphrasing is not an option. Although quoting may seem like the easiest approach to avoid plagiarism, it should be the least used approach. Lastly, citing is the most important tip in avoiding plagiarism. The definition of plagiarism is is claiming credit for a work or idea you did not come up with yourself, or using another individual’s work or idea without proper crediting. Therefore, if you cite the original text then you are giving credit where it is due. Make sure you cite any idea that was not originally yours, whether you are summarizing, paraphrasing, or quoting.

Week 4 Part 2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Iwobi -This article does not have substantial information about arsenal midfielder Alex Iwobi. There is not a lot of information about this player because he is fairly new to professional soccer. Therefore, he has not made much of a name for himself. Over the past two years he has made incredible improvements with his break into Arsenals first-team. With time more information will be available as he continues to create history. This page has received recent attention from wikipedians. The last post was posted on February 8 2017. This post was a response from another post discussing incorrect information on the article. The problem with this incorrect information was that it was corrected by an interview from Alex Iwobi. Unfortunately wikipedia does not allow videos as a reliable source so method of how to correct this incorrect information was discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csouc002 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * You did a great job with your answers, Chris, but your list of resources is not correct. You need to pick a list of pages that you can research and write related to this class on the French Revolution. Who is your character? What things have they done? Did they publish any books/pamphlets? Those sorts of things. Please go back and take a look at possible pages you can add to that relate to your character and this course. Alfgarciamora (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Week 5
The content of Emmanuel Joseph Sieyes on wikipedia has many gaps of information. For one there is no information about the family that Emmanuel Joseph Sieyes made in his adult life. Although I have not found any information on Emmanuel's wife and children I am determined to continue searching. There is also very little content on what happened after the French Revolution. I intend to clear all of the discontinuities. List of Sources: Reason and Revolution: The Political Thought of the Abbé Sieyes (1987);Sieyes: His Life and His Nationalism; A Rhetoric of Bourgeois Revolution: The Abbé Sieyes and What is the Third?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csouc002 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Week 6: Thinking About Wikipedia
What do you think of Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality”?

I believe that Wikipedia’s definition of neutrality goes hand in hand with what wikipedia expects from you as a writer. Wikipedia is a place where anyone around the world can place knowledge that they find interesting to themselves. Although a vast majority of people can enter information onto wikipedia, it is not a place for opinions rather a place for factual information. If wikipedia was a place for opinions there would be no way to regulate what may or may not be allowed on the website. Due to this premise wikipedia has implemented a "code" of neutrality so that wikipedia is a source of knowledge solely based off facts rather than opinions.

What are the impacts and limits of Wikipedia as a source of information?

Wikipedia places a few limits on its own credibility by allowing anyone to write on their website. Since Wikipedia is open to everyone, there is no way of proving the legitimacy of the writer. Wikipedia tries its best to counteract this fault by hiring expert wikipedians to critique entries made. The down side to this is that wikipedia has millions of articles. It is almost impossible for wikipedia’s experts to critique all of the articles being updated on a daily basis. Wikipedia also relies on some of its members to ratify content that should not belong.

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?

The sources that this excludes are mainly blogs and press releases. These sources do not fall under the category of reliable sources because of two main reasons. The first is that these sources may not use reliable sources themselves. There is no way of knowing where their sources came from unless they site it in their work. The second reason is because these sources are based of bias. Blog articles are written by people who are inspired to write about a specific topic. This inspiration comes from some sort of personal bias. As for the press releases, these companies only care about profits rather than pure knowledge. This questions the legitimacy of the articles written by the press companies.

If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, how might its content (and contributors) be different? What about 100 years from now? If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago there would be a substantially less amount of information. For one, there will not be as many people able to contribute to the articles. This will be due to the fact that internet did not exist at the time. Instead of Wikipedia being internet based it would be paper based like most forms of encyclopedia. There will also be stricter qualifications as to who can write on wikipedia. If Wikipedia was written 100 years from now there would be much more information than there is now. Also, internet will be more accessible in the future. This allows more people to put there input into wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csouc002 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Article Draft
Religious Career Due to the fact that the bishop of Tréguier had high regards for Sieyès, he was able to act as a representative of his diocese in the Upper Chamber of the Clergy.

Characteristics of Sieyes

Sieyes was always considered intellectual and intelligent by his peers and mentors alike. Through the virtue of his own thoughts, Sieyes progressed in his ideologies from personal experiences. Starting at a young age, Sieyes began to feel repulsion towards the privileges those of nobility received. This dishonor he felt for the privileged class became evident during Sieyes time at the Estates of Brittany where he was able to observe, with dissatisfaction, the sway of nobility. Aside from his opinions on nobility, Sieyes also had a passion for music. He devoted himself assiduously to cultivating music as he had plenty of spare time. Along with cultivating music, Sieyes also enjoyed writing reflections concerning these pieces. Sieyes had a collection of musical pieces he called “la catologue de ma petite musique.”. Although Sieyes was passionate about his ideologies, he had a rather uninvolved social life. Sieyes’ journals and papers held much information about his studies but almost nothing pertaining to his personal life. Associates of Sieyes referred to him as cold and vein. In particular, Talleyrand remarked that “Men are in his eyes chess-pieces to be moved, they occupy his mind but say nothing to his heart.” Another clue that Sieyes was aloof to intimate social interaction is the fact that he was never married. This evidence makes it clear that he had no interest and felt no worth from the company of others.

Second Consul of France

The Coups Legislatif appointed Bonaparte, Sieyes, and Roger-Ducos as “Consuls of the French Republic.” In order to once again begin the function of government, these three men took the oath of “Inviolable fidelity to the sovereignty of the people ; to the French Republic, one and indivisible ; to equality, liberty and the representative system.”[pg 130] Although Sieyes had many ideas, much of them were unfavorable by Bonaparte and Roger-Ducos. One aspect that was agreed upon was the structure of power. A list of active citizens formed the basis of the proposed political structure, from this list they were to choose one-tenth of their members to form a communal list eligible for local office, from the communal list, one-tenth of its members were to form a departmental list, finally, one further list was made up from one-tenth of the members from the departmental list to create the national list. This national list is where the highest officials of the land were to be chosen. Sieyes envisioned a Tribunat and a College des Conservateurs to act as the shell of the national government. The Tribunat would present laws and discuss ratification of these laws in front of a jury. This jury would not have any say in terms of what the laws granted consist of, rather whether or not these laws passed. The College des Conservateurs renews itself from the national list. The main responsibility College des Conservateurs was to choose the members of the two legislative bodies and protect the constitution by right of absorption, a curious provision by which it could forcibly elect any individual who is deemed dangerous to the safety of the state. This was a way to keep a closer eye on whoever held a threat to the sovereignty of the state. The power of College des Conservateurs was extended to electing the titular head of government. This position was called Grand-Electeur. The Grand-Electeur would take office for life but had no power. If the Grand-Electeur threatened to become dangerous, the College des Conservateurs would absorb him. The central idea of Sieyes’ plan was a division of power.