User talk:Grlucas/Discussion: Thinking about Wikipedia/Archive 2

Defining Neutrality
Neutrality is not taking a side to an argument, statement, (or anything). When I think of neutrality I think of neutral, and not having an opinion or being involved in any way. A few words that come to my mind when I think of Neutrality are; impartial, non-biased, and not making a decision or showing an expression. When someone writes an article for Wikipedia we want to always be neutral.-Acm2625 (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Acm2625
 * I agree and your definition is definitely like that of Wikipedia's. A neutral point of view is important when writing for Wikipedia. I think it is also important when being neutral to represent all sides equally. I feel like that can be forgotten sometimes since we want to focus on not taking sides of bigger arguments.—Sabub (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * One thing that makes neutrality so difficult is schools teach students that writing involves picking a perspective and developing a well-supported argument to validate that perspective. Dealing exclusively with facts on Wikipedia can be the perfect environment for a writer to slip back into what he or she has practiced for years in school.

Impacts
Wikipedia has become a readily available source for anyone on the internet. We are able to find almost any topic we want and learn about in minutes. This much easier than cracking open a bulky encyclopedia to search for a specific subject. Also, we are able to get updated quicker with Wikipedia since, as new information comes out, it is added to the corresponding pages. Even if we do not use it as a direct source we can find reliable sources about a subject through Wikipedia. — Sabub (talk) 02:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia being available in every language, giving everyone access and allowing them to edit it in anyway they choose is considered a major impact. Some contributions are effective and useful content.Tionnetakala (talk) 03:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * What kind of source material/references do you think can be used here to back up these claims?—TSchiroMGA (talk) 10:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Academia

 * There are a few articles I found that talk a bit how Wikipedia is being used in professional fields. This Science News article notes a study done to find the connection between scientific related Wikipedia articles and language used in later scientific studies. There was actually an association found. Also, I found another article that talks about Wikipedia's vast medical content. It also cites a study that showed medical students who used notes from Wikipedia on an exam did better than student's using other study aids. Of course, this doesn't automatically mean we should start using Wikipedia as the main source in academic papers. The Slate article does also mention some limitations. However, I do think these articles give some evidence to prove they can be helpful sources.— Sabub (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this content could go under a new subheading for Impacts? I created one and moved it there. Perhaps we should move our conversation down to the Talk page so that the article content stands out?—TSchiroMGA (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Limits
One of the limits that comes from using Wikipedia as source is that there will be times when the author of the article may be using sources that are not credible. If the original sources are not credible, then the information which you have just pulled from Wikipedia isn't credible either. Another limit that can come from the same type of error is an author writing information down without citing any sources at all. This can come from the author adding in personal experience without having evidence of what they are writing about. Strasburg7312 (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * These are definitely limits to Wikipedia. People really can just write whatever they want. You can't always take information at face value and have to make sure you check the sources for yourself. Wikipedia does, however, catch on quickly to very inaccurate articles and take the necessary steps to fix them. They also warn users that some information may not be the most reliable, whether it be through a banner at the top of the article or in the talk page. Wikipedia definitely isn't the perfect source of information, but it's still pretty helpful.— Sabub (talk) 02:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I mentioned impacts of wikipedia: however, The downside is the same reason why it is also an impact. Anyone can edit articles weather its factual statements or not. There's only limited staff and students correcting any errors or false information. With that stated, tons of the content goes with out being fixed, which becomes a major issue.Tionnetakala (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Types of Sources Allowed
Wikipedia exclusively allows content from reliable sources. Reliable sources must be published, in the correct context, and aged appropriately.

Types of Sources Excluded
Wikipedia is concerned with having biased content on its platform. Therefor it specifically excludes Questionable and self-published sources from being considered reliable.
 * Over time, we have become increasingly aware of the basics that constitute a source as an eligible candidate for providing information as a reference for a Wikipedia article. Contained in this week’s reading, editing Wikipedia, it was brought to our attention again that blog posts are not an acceptable source to use as a reference. This type of source is excluded due to the problems it faces with it being a reliable source of information as blogs can be published by anyone and contain any information they see fit. Its information could be altered to sway readers one way or the other which presents as bias or written without a fact-checking process taking place which is what separates a blog post from a Wikipedia article. Atallent (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Heuristically Determining Problems that Might Arise
If bias were allowed on Wikipedia then it would be a free-for-all. People would be more likely to engage in edit wars and the platform's usefulness would greatly decline. It is essential for Wikipedia to maintain a neutral perspective in order to be able to present the world's information from a factual point-of-view.

Wikipedia was Written 100 Years Ago
Printing press and distributions wouldn't be as wide spread because the volume of pages it would require for every article to be larger than any other Encylopedia set. Maybe they would have a blue bird system allowing you to write request for new information on a topic and have them mailed to you.Tionnetakala (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It would definitely be much more difficult to collaborate with others. Also, finding sources would definitely be much harder to find, especially for people not in the field of study. I think mailing would be the most realistic option in a 1919 version of Wikipedia. Honestly, I think a 100 years ago Wikipedia would probably be just like any other encyclopedia. Over time it would probably develop into what it is now.— Sabub (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

If Wikipedia was written a 100 years ago, I believe things would have been very different. World wide knowledge that we take for granted would not be accessible to the public. In fact 'public knowledge' as we know it would also be a very different thing. Hersey and conjectures would probably be taken as fact and common acceptable knowledge from one region to another, and may also be used as a factual reference. Things such as copyright infringement, plagiarism, and such would be much more prevalent since it'll many time more difficult to cross-check fact as we can now do with the help of the Internet.Ousainou Adeniyi (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia will be Written 100 Years From Now
100 years from now the universe will have implanted chips in our brains with tons of wiki articles to enhance knowledge. All of the articles will have MANDATORY scholarly sources. Articles will not have any false information.Tionnetakala (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * While it may be true or a very likely possibility that future people will have implanted chips in our brains that helps to enhance knowledge, I believe articles having false information would still be very probable. Maybe it would be by accident or something, but I do not think it will be 100% perfect even that far in the future because people make mistakes or do things they should not just to get people to believe and follow them. This was a fun scenario to think about, thank you! NVaden (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree with NVaden. I think that no matter what, false information will continue to exist and be spread. Not only due to mistakes but also because some false information may be intentional. Maybe these Wikipedia chips ( I'm assuming this is the kind of chip we are talking about) will have a better way of automatically matching sources to articles so the chance of false information is reduced. However, if Wikipedia were to continue to be edited by people around the world, there is no guarantee every article would be up to these standards. It would be very interesting if we could access information like this so instantly though.— Sabub (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk Page
I like Wikipedia's definition of neutrality. It is important that all the prevalent facts are presented and there is no element of persuasion.A bias point of view should not be thrown at the audience. The audience should let the information confirm to his or her biases, and not the other way around. There are many impacts and limitations of Wikipedia as a source. For example, one of the impacts is that the information is neutral majority of time. One of the limitations is that the information is neutral majority of the time. What I mean by that is, the same reason why Wikipedia is good as a source of information could be one of the reasons why it is inadequate as a source. For instance, you will not get two extremes of a case. More than likely, the tone and voice of the article will appear neutral. There will be no blunt force. Sometimes you made need this. Lastly, Wikipedia is forever changing. Therefore, the content and contributors may look different now than it will look in 100 years, and what it looked like a 100 years ago.--AmaniSensei (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Neutrality is defined as the state of not supporting or helping either side in a conflict or disagreement. Wikipedia as a sources of information has it up and down when coming to find information. So just facts should be presented in an article and no bias or persuasion involved in what other people or what you are trying to say.

The impact of having Wikipedia as a source is that has information but its from main other sources. So if you want to find some quick information all you have to do is find the links that are located at the bottom and cite that source. The limits to is is that you cant trust everything on Wikipedia, especially if its not backup. Number two is that you cant cite Wikipedia as a source of its own. Justin (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin.Sheppard (talk • contribs) 14:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Neutrality is something that I feel is becoming lost in many aspects of our lives. Everybody has an opinion. I think that Wikipedia is striving to be a place where opinions are set aside, and hard facts can be presented. As a college student, employee, and person in the 21st Century, online research is something that I do everyday, and I think it is very important to have sources that are factual and neutral.


 * While Wikipedia strives to be a source of neutral and factual information, there are some articles that have very little information. An example of this would be the articles that our class are working on this semester. I just finished reviewing the article that @Sabub is working on. She chose the International Cherry Blossom Festival, and there was a list of annual events. The list did not contain every event that the Cherry Blossom Festival has, but gave a pretty good overview. If I knew nothing about the Cherry Blossom Festival, I might would think that those events are the only ones that are offered!
 * Another limit to Wikipedia articles is that there are many articles that may need to be updated, but are not. Sources on Wikipedia that are not considered reliable would be sponsored sources, self-published sources, and user-generated sources (such as a blog). Wikipedia guidelines for sources can be found at Reliable sources. Sources like this may include information that is not reliable due to it being sponsored, meaning the results or content will sway in favor of the sponsor. Other issues that may arise is someone may claim something that isn't true or has nothing reliable to "back it up".
 * Wikipedia 100 years ago would have been totally different. We have infinite resources available to us today, which was not possible in 1919. We know much more today than we have ever before, and have access to more reliable sources than what was available so long ago. As for 100 years from now, I think of the progress we have made since 1919, and can only imagine what 2119 could be like! Information will be available that we don't even know that we don't have yet! LynzeeWhite (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I feel like Wikipedia has a good concept of neutrality. The whole concept of being neutral is not choosing a side. When a person is presenting facts, it should be done in a neutral fashion. Gathering information should not be about choosing sides, it should simply be about stating what is or is not.

I think that is why so many people are hesitant about using Wikipedia as a reliable source. Wikipedia is a vast database full of information on almost everything we know. Information is not biased but people are and people are the ones who post to Wikipedia. That is the problem we run into. With such a vast database, with so many different pages and articles, it is difficult to monitor every single one to make sure the information posted is neutral. So it is important to use sources that everyone has access to. That is a problem I am trying to avoid with my article. I could get all the information I needed for my article if I went and interviewed the Waldens, who once owned Capricorn Records. But that interview would not be published so no one else would have access to make sure all of the information I published was true. So I am trying to only use the information that can be accessed by anyone who wants to check my work. I also have no clue how you would cite an interview you conducted yourself on Wikipedia.

I don't know the full history of encyclopedias but I have to assume the vastness of Wikipedia would have baffled people 100 years ago. I remember the one we had growing up and that was published in the 80s. That was an alphabetical set of 15 books and even they didn't have anywhere near as much detail as some of the articles I have seen on Wikipedia. So I imagine if the information was gathered from 100 years ago, it would be very limited. A huge part of what has made Wikipedia so vast is technology.

I think 100 years from now this site may be obsolete. It will have laid the groundwork for some technological marvel but based on the progress on technology today, in about 50 years even the internet we know today may be seen as a relic. Jkoplin1 (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Jkoplin1


 * I think information should presented on Wikipedia as facts and not biased. Neutrality ensures that information is presented accurately and honest. If contributors were able to argue opinions or convince others, Wikipedia would be a blog or a forum. To uphold Wikipedia's integrity as an encyclopedia, neutrality is a must.

The impacts of Wikipedia being a source is that it provides information that has been fact checked and verified. This makes users feel confident in the content that they consume on Wikipedia. A limitation is that anyone has the right to make changes. This sometimes leads to incorrect information being presented and not checked before users utilize the information checked. It takes people to make effort to check the facts to ensure accuracy. If no one edits articles then incorrect information could possibly be left for users to consume. Since information must come from reliable, published sources, it is important to be clear of what kinds of sources qualify. News articles and scholarly journals are usually the best sources. These sometime present a problem because sometimes news can be relayed in a biased way to make the article more appealing. It is important to determine what is fact and cross check information from different sources so that we are using the correct research for our articles. If Wikipedia were written 100 years ago, content would be very outdated and writing styles would greatly differ as well. Different elements of language would be harder to understand. Also, articles like Twist (dance) are hard for youth of todays generation to understand or remember. This was close to 60 years ago when this trendy dance became famous. Looking at generations 100 years from now, they will have to be knowledgeable of phrases and popular subjects to understand some of the Wikipedia content that is currently being added. An example is twerking. Also, contributors of the future will be more equipped with advanced technology so their editing to our content will be the updated version of the articles we are creating. Kehli.west (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Handling Wikipedia Images
Finding free license images seems to be the most current obstacle that many of our classmates are trying to figure out. I am definitely one of them. If anyone has any good suggestions on how to make a little easier please follow on this segment. I'll start this segment off by suggesting for classmates interested to take a look at designhill.com's list of top 35 sites that provide the best and largest accumulation of Free Public Domain Image Websites. While I doubt this will fix all your problems, it can definitely make it easier. Ousainou Adeniyi (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)