User talk:Krm107/sandbox

Course Reflection - April 27, 2020
During the article evaluation assignment, we learned the extent to which Wikipedian’s consider the information that is front facing to the general public. The evaluation goes beyond accuracy of information; the assignment asks us to think about neutrality and balance, the overuse of jargon and technical language, and the importance of citing reputable sources. When I chose an article to critique for this assignment, I approached it using the resources the course provided. I looked closely at each element as outlined in the assignment instructions. Besides the content, we were asked to consider the lead, tone, bias, organization, and images. This assignment helped me to see where improvements could be made in the article. In the end, I decided to make two different contributions to the article for the purposes of this class: I made some restructuring edits and corrected some citations and I added a new blurb about Arts-based research as a specialized use of qualitative research.

Without deleting contributions made by other Wikipedians, I moved some of the content to give the article a more logical flow. It felt very disjointed, as if different people kept adding “new” things without reading what was already there. There was a lot of redundant information, and a lot of related information that was separated into different sections. For example, there was a section labeled “Data collection, analysis and research design” and a section labeled “Data analysis.” I moved all but the information about data collection and relabeled the section “Data collection.” While I believe the restructuring that I did helped to improve the article, I believe a lot of work still needs to be done. There is still a lot of redundancy, and a lot of technical language that could be rewritten. The blurb I added about arts-based research is, perhaps, a more important contribution because there was nothing on the Qualitative research page about the methodological approach. Unfortunately, I could find no good relevant images to add to the page. I did review two of my classmates’ articles on their talk pages. I was very impressed with the work my classmates were doing, and I tried to provide feedback that was helpful related to leads, tone, balance, and organization. I did not receive feedback from my classmates or other Wikipedians, but my professor did review my written contribution before I published it. Besides learning about all that happens in the “background” on Talk pages and in Sandboxes, and learning about the editing features and general structure of Wikipedia articles, I learned about the praiseworthy collaborative efforts of many to provide accurate and well-sourced information that is available to everyone for free. In preparation for making my contributions to the page, I also learned a great deal about a methodological approach that is of interest to me. This assignment was entirely different from anything I’ve done for classes in the past. It gave us an opportunity to consider the credibility of sources, and it gave us an opportunity to publish to the general public (a very different audience than our scholarly article assignments usually target). Wikipedia, as a source of free information, has the potential to improve the general public’s understanding of qualitative research greatly. A well written, clear, unbiased, properly cited article can help people who are not qualitative researchers to understand the history, methods, and rationale for using such approaches. Moreover, it might help to improve the general impression of the research as a scientific approach to understanding that has worth and validity. Krm107 (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)