User talk:Grlucas/Discussion: Content Gap/Archive 1

Content Gap Defined
Wikipedia is an online collaboration space managed by individuals voluntarily working towards making and maintaining an unbiased, reliable source vetted, free encyclopedia. It is a working document and so has the potential to be missing information that users are seeking. A content gap refers to that missing information. Content gaps can be found in an existing article that needs editing or a missing article that might need to be written. Content gaps offer opportunity to contribute information to Wikipedia. Content gaps occur for many reasons, including issues with notability and author bias.

Notability
Content gaps exist due to lack of notability. Wikipedia only displays content based on existing publications on a topic. Contributions can be made when at least 2 sources exist on a topic meeting the requirements.

Requirements to contribute
 * More than a brief mention
 * From different respected persons or establishments
 * Independent of contributor or topic related organizations or persons

Bias
Content gaps also exist due to author bias. Being "unbiased" on Wikipedia means being willing to objectively report information, validating information through careful and consistent citation of reliable sources, and avoiding personal slant and viewpoint. An author's ethical obligation is to minimize any bias in their writing. To be biased is to show prejudice in your writing for or against an issue. However, determining bias may be difficult to discern or omit completely when writing about an issue. Writers must put forth the effort to diligently research an issue to ensure only empirical evidence is presented that concisely supports both sides.

Findability
Contact gaps are hard to find in ‘featured’ and ‘good’ qualified articles. A short article that needs to be developed more fully is called a stub and is a opportunity for writers to contribute to the knowledge on Wikipedia.

Several resources are available on Wikipedia pages to help find content gaps:


 * Categories
 * Navigation templates
 * Links in red in template or in body “indicates missing information”
 * Wikiprojects
 * Existing lists
 * Article finder tool
 * Viewing a talk tab
 * Wikipedia experts

Wikipedia Writers
Anyone with the ability to research and communicate ideas clearly can contribute to Wikipedia. But Wikipedia writers must remain objective, be willing to collaborate with others, and need to see the writing and publishing process differently than they might otherwise expect it to be. Anyone who does not like the democratic nature of Wikipedia or who insists on taking a position on a topic will struggle with the process. The writing style on Wikipedia should be formal, yet "impersonal". Present only the facts to readers. Readers should not be presented with the writer's opinions on a topic.

Works Cited

Citations

Talk Page
Do you think the definition should indicate something like this:

content gaps offer writers the opportunity fill in the gaps and contribute knowledge.

In order to locate where content gaps exist, look for X, y and Z... JVbird (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And a nod to stubs, etc., would be a good idea. —Grlucas (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I added the nod to stubs in the findability and meshed what and I wrote for the definition. Please add to the definition if you have something else. You rock J!(Dmcgonagill (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)) I want to add a content box with contributor names and I know there is a model we could follow to add our names into the box, but I cannot for the life of me remember or get to the page. Please add if you can find it! It would look nice and give public credit to contributors. ☻ Adding a photo of some kind would also add some positive aesthetic appeal, I think.(Dmcgonagill (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC))

Posting the Professional Discourse to the talk page here.

Professional Discourse I am used to this term more specifically being applied to persuasive writing, where even if a position is taken, it is objectively argued and supported and counter arguments are reasonably responded to. I do think that this is a complex topic either way. Even if a writer is objective, uses sources to validate ideas, there is an inherent bias. What a writer chooses to include and what a writer chooses to exclude from an article, for example, no matter how objectively that information is presented, shows a slant or bias.Dillbug (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

JVbird (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC) (talk)


 * There is not much to add to the discussion as the questions have been rather thoroughly answered. My only contribution is an author's ethical obligation is to minimize any bias in their writing. To be biased is to show prejudice in your writing for or against an issue. However, determining bias may be difficult to discern or omit completely when writing about an issue. Writers must put forth the effort to diligently research an issue to ensure only empirical evidence is presented that concisely supports both sides. JVbird (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (talk)Dillbug  ::@JVbird: Wikipedia Editing suggests minimizing bias when writing in Wikipedia is to write only the facts and not try to persuade a point of view when writing. Also, writers format should remian formal and objective.(talk) 21:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

(Dmcgonagill (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC))

My understanding of the basic biasedness is taking a stance on a topic and using all resources to show that your stance is correct. It is more the emotional response of having your understanding challanged and not wanting to change based off new information. Scientific biased has lead to many studies that are contreversal. Wikipedia states that bias is unfair and commonly favored unfairly. However, in my opinion, fairness is subjective and does often reflect social acceptance. Namir Riptide (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup
Is needed! LOL. Remember, this is a discussion — not an essay! —Grlucas (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I cleaned up what I understood how to do. Shouldn't all the dialogue with personal input be here on the talk page? I tried to cut it out and post at the bottom under a professional discourse heading because I feel guilty deleting peer thoughts and I also messed up signature placements, but we don't need signatures when contributing to a user page because when logged in our contribution is recorded in the history regardless, right?!?(Dmcgonagill (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC))


 * Hi, Dana, Rian, and Dr. Lucas, about cleanup-it feels repetitive now and the information on stubs is missing, so what about we as a group take out the repetitive subcategories and then we can add examples of content gap if they are necessary? I can work on this later today to get it cleaned up if you all think we are moving in the right direction with the discussion. I'm also confused about the topic on the discussion about our experience with bias. If this were an actual Wiki entry, it wouldn't include first person statements, but for here, is it appropriate to do that?  JVbird (talk) 10:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly just add straight onto the working document everything we've all suggested. Examples sound great, so does removing repetition. Stubs is included in findability, but elaboration there would be good.(Dmcgonagill (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC))


 * OK, you guys took a different approach, which is fine with me. Yes, you needn't sign your names, of you're constructing an article-like entry. Just let me know when you've added and tweaked what you need to do. Cheers! —Grlucas (talk) 11:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm done tweaking.(Dmcgonagill (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC))


 * I've cleaned it up a bit more but I think the references still need work and that last section where we are discussing Bias seems more like a personal statement (based on the last bullet in the discussion instructions) than a part of the discussion of Content Gaps. Is that something to reconcile? JVbird (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I moved the Professional Discourse section over here to further cleanup the discussion page. I'm still working on reference section and may need someone else's help!(Dmcgonagill (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC))
 * Let me know how I can help with the references. I'm still not at all very good with them but I'll learn! I can't even get the font right in my Bio page OR figure out how to insert a picture. The pollen is in my head so bad right now, though, I can barely see straight, so to speak. JVbird (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Content Gap seems to be exactly what the term state. Gaps of content that is missing from an article. Content gap occurs due to missing information or the bias of authors. I think a great way to identify some content gaps could include information that doesn't seem to flow in order of the content. For example, Tina was age 6 when she started writing. At age 32, Tina wrote her first novel. A lot of content seems to be missing in between this information. It would be great to know what experiences Tina had over time to lead her to writing her first novel from age 6 to age 32. I believe some content gaps could exist because the author probably hasn't completed full research on the topic or the author could possibly find sources that don't agree with each other leaving a gap for the content because they are not sure what is correct, hence conducting more research. I would also think this could lead the author to a biased opinion about the context. I think a great way to remedy this would be to find the most reliable resources that have matching information.Ssimsjones (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Example
What about adding some examples of a content gap? Most of the information about content has been answered already. I am still learning the ins and out of using Wikipedia because there are so many links that I get lost very easily

Waebo (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Headers
Why are they so small? LOL. See MOS:HEAD —Grlucas (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Increased. Thanks. (Dmcgonagill (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC))
 * 👍🏼 —Grlucas (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

This  is crazy. LOL. It should be just. You should very rarely use HTML in wiki posts. Think simplicity. —Grlucas (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)