User talk:Grlucas/Discussion: Content Gap/Archive 2

Defining Content Gaps
Wikipedia attempts to be a comprehensive source of information. However, there is a lot of missing information. A content gap is the information that is missing from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia Mechanics
Wikipedia offers built-in mechanics to help identify certain content gaps. Red links highlight articles that should be written. Wikipedia identifies its highest-priority articles through its Vital Articles section. These high-priority topics likely have missing information that needs to be added.

Bias
Taking one side of an argument over another is bias. Wikipedia content should be free of bias. Carroll suggests that one can help to avoid bias by using content from a "well-respected organization".

Talk Page
I actually had this problem before. I went online to search something, but the results did not align with my original intentions. In other words, there was a content gap. Content gap is basically the difference between what individuals are looking for and what individuals actually experience/find online. There are a few ways to identify this problem. One solution is you should reconsider the words(jargon) you are typing. Sometimes you may or may not be using the right jargon. This brings me to the second solution which is, the person creating the online information should reevaluate his or her potential audience. His or her audience may not be utilizing the same jargon, and if they are, it is important to consider the implications of the connotations of words.This may bring up searches you may not want. So you always have to keep this in mind. Furthermore, I do not believe it matters who writes Wikipedia, as long as the information is valid and credible. Wikipedia is all about remaining neutral, and having an unbiased viewpoint. In others words, Wikipedia is all about the facts. Wikipedia re-frames from being bias(no persuasion). This aligns with my view/definition of being unbiased.--AmaniSensei (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Something that is wonderful about Wikipedia is that anybody can be an expert, as long as you have the sources to back up what you are saying. Wikipedia has experts who filter out information that is false, biased in tone, or persuasive. Being an unbiased user on Wikipedia means that I will create content that does not give opinions or attempt to persuade a reader in any way. This also includes being aware of Conflict of Interests, and refraining from writing or editing articles that would break this "rule". I think this is similar to my personal definition of bias. I have always believed that bias was leaning one way or another on a topic based on personal feelings or opinions, and I feel that Wikipedia feels similarly and wishes to keep these biases away from the content that they produce.


 * A content gap is a topic that is not on Wikipedia, and is often recognizable by being in a current articles Navigation Template or article body in the color red. An article gap might occur simply because it is something that has not been covered by a user yet. By educating ourselves on the topic, we can become the author and begin an article on said topic. It is helpful to include at least 3-5 sources of valuable and valid information.


 * We have discussed good and bad Wikipedia articles, but a question I have is how often are articles updated? If I were to update an article with valuable and scholarly information, what is the process then to update the rating from "start" or "low" to "good", and how long does it take before it's updated? LynzeeWhite (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you pose a good question. I didn't really think about how often articles were evaluated. If I were to take a guess, I think most articles you have to bring to the attention of people in the WikiProject. I think the more important articles are probably ones that get evaluated on a regular basis.— Sabub (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a interesting question! For a historical event, like the Notre-Dame de Paris fire, I would imagine the page would be created and updated as new information is shared (even if that new information is explicitly stated to be a theory about why the fire happened.) As of now, it is a class-C article, which isn't a great rating. It needs to be refined. However, the fire happened back in April. For it to be a class-C two months after the event seems pretty good. As a comparison, the Charlie Hebdo shooting is a class-B article. That event occurred over four years ago. So my guess would be that it is easier to bring a stub page up to a class-C, but bringing any page higher than that will take a significantly longer period of time. --Sara Kathryn 21:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * A content gap happens when we evaluate existing contents and we find that the content can be improved. It is like when we search a subject and it does not contain all the information we need. Some possible ways to identify them are by analyzing the information and and comparing to other articles about the same topic. Content gap might arise when the writer is not fully capable of writing about certain subjects. To remedy content gap people should think more about the things they write and then post. We can also remedy content gap by doing more research before making an article public and make sure that we know and we are sure about the content of our post.

Doe it matter who writes Wikipedia? Yes, it does. I believe that you need to be an expert in the subject you want to write for because if you are not then you are going to find many people who knows more than you and are going to start criticizing your work. Besides, you can get other people confuse with the things you write if you are not an expert on the subject. What does it mean to be "unbiased" on Wikipedia? It means that you need to provide objective information. I believe Wikipedia is a web site where a lot of people look up for information. If the articles are unbiased then they can help people and inform them more effectively.Ysabella Escalona (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * To be unbiased is to have evidence to show any of the terms that are opposed of each other, in other terms a neutral presentation. This is different than my definition of bias because unlike unbiased; bias is the idea in believing in a key point of a situation that according to them is opposing.


 * Wikipedia is not considered to be a primary source; however, writers still strive on every day basis to enhance each article, hoping to be free of errors. So yes, it does matter who the writer is critiquing and editing articles. If articles are missing important components, this is often referred to as content gaps. Content gaps need to be fixed so that the criteria can be effective enough to consider being a primary source. There are so many Wikipedia articles that do no indicate to have a green star. This means that the article does not need to be polished. A majority of the articles that do not indicate a green star means that it consists of a content gap. Other ways to identify articles that contain content gaps is to compare them to scholarly sources. If the information is false then the article is not effective and concise.

Tionnetakala (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * A content gap is simply a gap in content. When searching for information on a place like Wikipedia we may struggle to find what we were looking for. That missing information is a content gap. On Wikipedia we can identify red links to see what articles have yet to be added but are notable enough to warrant an article. Also, looking through the Vital articles page can help in identifying in gaps for the most vital articles on Wikipedia. Specific fields also have page dedicated to content gap analysis, so people in the field can collaborate and make suggestions to reduce the gap in information. An example would be the Society for Marine Mammalogy page.

These gaps may arise because of lack of interest or perhaps because there are not enough reliable sources available. I think a way to fix this is to try to connect to others on Wikipedia. Specifically, those in the field that you want to fill gaps in. If you get people who are interested in the subject, it is more likely that more work will be done to identify and fill gaps. As for reliable sources, I think the most that can be done is to just keep searching on a regular basis so that when the information is available, it can be accessed and used quickly. I believe it does matter who writes on Wikipedia. In the case of content gaps, I believe it is important to have many people who know the subjects of articles well, so they can recognize missing information, so gaps can be eliminated. Even more importantly, a Wikipedia user should not be biased when writing. Since articles are supposed to be unbiased, if someone can’t write neutrally, then Wikipedia isn’t really the place for them. While not everyone needs to be experts in the subject of an article, it is important that writers can throw bias aside when writing for Wikipedia.

Wikipedia’s meaning of unbiased is not giving just one point of view on a subject, but all the information. To be unbiased on Wikipedia means to leave out your own thoughts on the subject and just write the information as it is presented (NPOV). My own definitions of ‘bias’ and ‘unbiased’ are like Wikipedia’s. My meaning of bias is being in favor of one thing over another while being unbiased would be looking at all sides/options equally.— Sabub (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Content gaps are when there is a lack of information on a subject. This occurs when the topic is noted but there are no supporting articles to provide information on the topic. This will be indicated by red links at the bottom of the article page to indicate the content gap. They can sometimes exist in the article itself. A way to remedy the content gaps is to do more research on the topic and create an article based on the subject to "fill the gap".

It does not matter who writes on Wikipedia, but it is important the writer uses credible sources and writes with an unbiased view. The writer also needs to make sure that he or she cites any references to give credit to their sources. The writer also needs to be open to correction in the event that he or she presents information incorrectly.

To be unbiased on Wikipedia would mean that any shared article will need to state facts and stay far away from personal opinions and experiences. To have a bias would mean the writer would incorporate their opinions and views on the topic. This may not always be accurate and would not present a credible article for providing factual information. Kehli.west (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * When you are researching something but cannot find what you are looking for or the results are incomplete, that is a content gap. As it pertains to Wikipedia, a content gap would be a specific person, place or thing that is missing or incomplete.

A content gap may arise when new methods of communication are introduced and not all existing information has bene migrated over. Another example of a content gap would be whenever there are new discoveries that create new questions.

Some ways to remedy content gaps are to help migrate existing information over to new communication systems. Another way to remedy content gaps would be to aid in the research and development of new fields of learning.

In my opinion, one of the greatest attributes of Wikipedia is that it is open to the community to curate and critique it. However, when it comes to who should be authorized to write Wikipedia, the only exception I can think of, would be when a writer has a specific conflict of interest to the subject of the article.

Unbiased on Wikipedia means that your writing must maintain a neutral and impartial tone. Sides of a topic may be discussed but equal time and weight should be given to all relevant points of view, with no specific viewpoint being presented as superior. I don't think there is much difference in Wikipedia's definition of bias, when compared with my own. My natural personality lends itself to step outside whatever box of thought I am in, and view the subject from multiple viewpoints. When I discuss things with others, I try to see things they way they describe them. That is why I have chosen to pursue mediation as a career, because remaining impartial, and neutral during conflicts is something that comes naturally to me. I will work to keep my contributions to Wikipedia, as impartial as I possibly can. Mightymize (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * A content gap refers to the lack of information on a topic on Wikipedia. This can either be a partial completion or complete lack of information. They are identifiable by shorter paragraph lengths, broad statements, and red links. An example would be Rose Hill Cemetery (Macon, Georgia). It displays all of these qualities, with only two paragraphs of four to five sentences each, statements that do not include detail, and two red links.

Potential reasons for a content gap include the inability to find valid sources to support edits and minimal interest from contributors on the topic. There are several ways to address these issues, such as presenting the importance of the information to other contributors and encouraging experts in that subject to study and write on the information.

It is extremely important that Wikipedia is written by certain people. Wikipedia acts as a source of information to many, so having writers who are unbiased, thoughtful, and use proper grammar are important. If these characteristics are not met, articles are at greater risk of inaccuracy.

The article Neutral point of view lists five major aspects of writing to follow to remain unbiased. These are to not frame facts as opinions, not frame opinions as facts, not write heavy assertions as facts, use neutral wording, and properly show the levels of support for differing viewpoints. All of these fit within my personal definition of unbiased. 1-800-OWLZ (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It does matter who writes on Wikipedia because a biased writer can ruin the credibility of an entire article. Unlike academic writing where a person's work is only taken seriously if he or she has a degree, the only real requirement for writing on Wikipedia is that he or she is committed to setting aside biases and writing from an objective perspective. A person with a college degree will have more practice using those skills than someone without a college degree. However, education does not necessarily prevent someone from writing without bias (though we hope it will make someone more aware of their biases.) To me, a bias has always meant pushing an agenda. On Wikipedia, it seems that bias is more of a blind preference than an actual conscious desire persuade people. The way around bias is exploration. If a person explores a topic from all sides, that person will have a more difficult time being biased.--Sara Kathryn 02:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Cavaliergirl96 (talk)


 * A content gap is when there is information missing about a topic or a topic does not exist yet when it should and information seems to be lost. It seems like the contributions we will be doing to our articles are going to be us helping to fill in those content gaps and make the article much more credible. Possible ways to identify content gaps would be to follow up on the citations and do a bit of research into the topic to see if there is anything that should have been included. Another way, at least on wikipedia, would be to look for links to articles that show up in red because that means the article or page has not yet been created. Some ways this might arise would be because there is not enough reliable information on the topic and I am not sure how to fix that specifically but I do know that you should not just make up stuff because that will make things worse. I do not really think that it matters who writes on wikipedia as long as they are knowledgeable on the topic and have credible sources to back it up. To be unbiased on wikipedia would mean that you are not trying to convince others that ‘this is the only way or the right way’. You provide the information but not in a way that is meant to provoke influence or sway others. We do not get a side. We just give facts like you are supposed to do with news articles, even though news articles can mess up and tend to use select wording to make you feel a certain kind of way. NVaden (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

To understand what a content gap is and to be able to recognize them in Wikipedia articles, one must first understand what makes a good article. A good article takes a notable topic and thoroughly explains and answers any of the questions a reader may have. The article gathers information from reliable sources and fills these holes of content that might be missing which, in return, creates a more accurate and informative piece.

If there are any “holes” of missing information in an article that takes away from its cohesiveness or quality of explanation, this is what is called a content gap. If you are ever reading through an article and are left with follow up questions, still feel like there is more to be discussed, or are left in confusion, that is an easy way to identify a content gap. Content gaps can form because there are not enough people covering or working on a certain topic or there are not enough sources available to verify information. One way to fix this is to get individuals working on articles they are close to that do not have enough coverage.

It does not matter who writes on Wikipedia as long as they abide by their guidelines and back up their work using quality sources. Take this class for example, most of us never interacted with Wikipedia in this way and now, here we are getting ready to edit and contribute to an article that will actually be published online. As long as an individual feels the responsibility to only put out accurate information and is willing to put in the work, anyone could write on Wikipedia. With that being said, it is important to remember that Wikipedia editors are to remain unbiased by their opinions. To be unbiased means to remain neutral in your writings and to only present verifiable facts to support your claims. This is similar to my definition of bias because when you feel a certain way about a topic you are going to want to speak about it as such, but  Wikipedia is a platform that presents a neutral point of view. Atallent (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia gives anyone the access to freely write on articles and pages. I think that it matters to an extent on who is writing on Wikipedia. I don't believe that you need to be an expert on the topic but I also believe that you should not start editing random pages where you don't know what you're talking about. As long as you have researched the topic that you are writing about and you have pulled up credible resources to use when editing, I believe you should be able to write and edit the topic of which you are talking about. This gets into the next point as well which is bias and content gaps. If you are writing and you feel you have gathered the information for your topic you want to make sure you don't leave any essential information out of the article. When there is important information missing from the page, that would be your content gap. Another thing to try and be aware of is that you need to make sure you are staying biased. The article that you write must be neutral in position. You cannot have an opinion when writing the article of your choice. Strasburg7312 (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * A content gap consist of information that is not there and information that people are not looking for. Content Gaps often happen when the article is not finished or edit correctly. I think there are various ways to avoid these content gaps. One way might be to finish the article and review it for editing. Another great way to tell if there is a content gap is to look at the icons in the articles on Wikipedia to see if it has already been fixed. I would just try looking for neutral articles that are not locked or display a lock icon. I would recommend using all the resources we have on Wikipedia such as the navigation templates,using specific categories,and article finder tools, these all can help to avoid content gaps. By doing this you should be able to find a great article-Acm2625 (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Acm2625


 * Understanding a content gap and what it does for you and how it harms your research is quite simple. A content gap is where information is not either missing from the article or the article is not yet finish. When thinking about trying to avoid a content gap you could edit the article and make it better than it was before. You could add information that's not present that you need and or add links to the article. I believe there are some benefits for a content gap as well though. Content gaps can make you a better research and a better editor, because you become more aware of the articles you read and you pay more attention to what your reading then you have before. Justin (talk)


 * One thing that people have is a voice and they want to tell who ever wants to listen or maybe just see what your talking about and that is where Wikipedia kicks in. It does does not take an expert to write on Wikipedia. As long as they have valuable information and the resources to back it up your good. There maybe certain wikipedians who write article can either be bias or unbiased about whatever there writing about. When coming up with article to write about the person should remain neutral to the subject. Its just like writing a newspaper. When writing a newspaper article the author and editor have to be very neutral to the subject because there just giving out information to the population and not putting their own opinion in the article.

Justin (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin.Sheppard (talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * A Content Gap is a lack of content/information/data on a given topic or subject matter. This generally does not mean that there is absolutely no information/data or much study on said topic/subject matter—for example, topics with little to no contributed content given our current lack knowledge in the field; i.e. Life after Death, Time Travel, or the Existence of Extraterrestrial Life, would not be considered as good examples of content gaps—rather subjects and topics that have been given the appropriate amount of discussions as well as study (if maybe not understanding) that also happen lack detail, or up-to-date content will be more so the type of content gap we as Wikipedians look for. Content gaps might arise from generally 3 common situations:
 * 1) Outdated content: meaning that there has not been any updated content written about a subject matter, despite ongoing developments, changes, and contradiction that might’ve arisen within the interim of past and present studies, which can result to a spread untrustworthy and false information to the general public who are usually unaware of the changes.
 * 2) Lack of example & details: It is also very possible that like many topics on Wikipedia, they not are fully covered or in detail despite them being accurate & up-to-date. Due to the number of ever-expanding topics and subject matter available online, it has now become common place to see article about topics that very little written about them just due to the lack of editors available to work them. Biographies of notable figures within their fields who are still living are good example of this. (i.e. Caitlin Dewey Rainwater).
 * 3) Complexity: There are also types of contend gaps that may be both up-to-date and very detailed but fall the fault of being far too detailed & overly-technical. A good example of this is the wiki article on Dual quaternion. While this article is well written, highly rated, and from its Talk page’s heavy traffic, quite heavily engaging for experts in the field of mathematics, I still find it unnecessarily complex and overly technically at points when there is no reason to be. What could be explain in one sentence took three. The constant use foreign terminologies without context was also prevalent. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, the purpose on an encyclopedia to provide and explain knowledge for those who lack it. The fact that the average person reading such an article cannot follow or apply such knowledge despite it being, current, accurate, and detailed, then it will of course result in a contend gap.
 * Ousainou Adeniyi (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)