User:AmaniSensei/NMAC 3108 Journal

June 1, 2019: Introduction

Hi everyone my name is Amani. I consider myself to be a lifelong learner. I am under the impression that we learn something new everyday. Hence, my goal for the class is to learn/gain a new perspective regarding digital media. The most interesting thing I have done is snowing boarding down a double black diamond.

@AmaniSensei: Welcome to the course. —Grlucas (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@AmaniSensei: Hey Amani! Your presentation last semester was pretty cool. I have never been snowboarding but I have gone skiing. That was exhilarating! I look forward to working with you this semester. TSchiroMGA (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! And same—looking forward to a great semester @TSchiroMGA:--AmaniSensei (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

June 1, 2019: Second Journal

As I stated earlier we learn something new everyday. I always wondered why Wikipedia's format seemed less pleasing to the eye than most websites. I did not know the goal of Wikipedia was to provide a neutral argument. Wikipedia tries to re-frame from leaning one way or the other. Hence, that is why you do not get a lot of color or many artistic skills on display. Furthermore, I also learned that Wikipedia is not as clustered as it looks. Meaning, before completing the readings and the training modules, the free encyclopedia seemed a bit confusing to me. Now that I understand the format and some of its functions, Wikipedia does not seem as clustered as before. I am aware that everything has it's place and everything is meant to be clear and concise.

@AmaniSensei: Hello! I noticed your journals are all separated into different sections. I think it would be best to organize your journals together with dated titles so they are easier to go through. I'm not sure if it is required to do it that way, but I have seen it done that way on other student's pages. Other than that, I am glad you are understanding Wikipedia more. Also, like you said the site is very neutral since the main priority is being encyclopedia after all. —Sabub (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback {{ping|Sabub}} I recognized this problem so in order to compensate I included links to the journals on my user page. This should make things a little easier. --~~~

June 8, 2019: Third Journal

Many of us have heard the phrase you only get one chance to make an impression. I was totally impressed after the evaluation of my Wikipedia article. I choose Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. This is ironic. I decided to performed my evaluation of the article we were assigned to read. An article on how to remain neutral. In other words, I critiqued the article that was critiquing/ giving out the guidelines on how to have a neutral point of view. First and foremost, the layout was very condense and easy to read. Everything was easy to clarify, the article did not leave me confused. Furthermore, the article had a sound argument and appeared very neutral. The article passed everything according to what was on Niklas Göke, “How to Edit Your Writing in Three Passes.”. The article was pretty much head on. Although I expect this from an article that supposed to teach you how to create a neutral point of view. It would be very embarrassing if the article page did not follow the advice it was circulating. Two highlights of this article is that, a table of contents were included and there were no visuals. This is important, because in order to remain neutral one must re-frame from colors. Colors tend to sway people. If I had one complaint, it would be that it did not include a link to a not so neutral article. This would have strengthen their argument tremendously. According to Niklas Göke, it is imperative to enter the state of mind of a "hater". It was great that the article displayed an example of what to do, but it is also important to include an example of what not to do. Advice on not doing something, and showing an example of what not to do are two different things. This is where I believed the article failed; it should have included a link. I recommend including a link under Section 11. This would have been the prefect place to include an example of what not to do. Do not get me wrong this article is probably one of the most neutral Wikipedia pages out there. However, the article still has room for improvement. It is imperative that you "write, edit, review", and then write again. Overall, this article was very solid.

@AmaniSensei: Great evaluation on the NPOV article. You evaluated the content, tone and sources as well as made a suggestion for improvement. Well Done!--Mightymize (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@AmaniSensei: Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial is not really an article; also, you should have chosen it on the WikiEdu dashboard. Links to Wikipedia content should not be referenced in a note (do you have a ref section?), but linked in the body of the text. Updates to your journal should be called journal posts not journals. Be sure to proofread and revise; be especially diligent on placement of footnotes and punctuation. Could your entry have used some writing for digital media strategies for readability (cf. Carroll, chapter 2)? Finally, I admire your enthusiasm by working ahead, but be sure you're not making additional work for yourself by doing so. 😁 —Grlucas (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

June 8, 2019: Fourth Journal

For this journal entry I choose to review The Cannonball House. On the surface level this article seems to pass the eye test. The article appears to be very neutral in all aspects. The information was very dense and concise. The article passed everything according to what was on Niklas Göke, “How to Edit Your Writing in Three Passes.” One thing important thing to note is that the article did include visuals. The colors were not very extravagant so it did not distract the audience. In fact, it is essential to include a map if you are referring to a particular location. On the other hand, the article failed to mention that some of the antiques and furniture were donated from neighboring cities. The article made it seem as if everything inside of the Cannonball House was authentic to Macon,GA but in all actually it was not. I am not sure when the Weber square grand piano was added, but it is authentic to Governor’s Mansion in Milledgeville. Furthermore, all the facts were very solid. Most of the information surrounding The Cannonball House can be found on the Cannonball Website. It is also linked in the archive. Lastly, I would recommend that the article include information from the local press during that time period, testimonials, and court records to verify how the Cannonball house received it's name, and other important implications. The article did include a link to the Civil War , but after a thorough check of the link no where in the article mention Cannonball House. Although, I have no reason to suspect that this information is false, because the information is verified on the Cannonball Website. It wouldn't have hurt if there was another credible source to back up this sources's information. Overall, the article had great and accurate content. The layout was fabulous. It was short and to the point.

@AmaniSensei: This is better for the article evaluation exercise. 👍🏼 Some good observations here. Where do footnotes go? Before or after the punctuation mark? How do we know? —Grlucas (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Footnotes go after the punctuation. @Grlucas:--AmaniSensei (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@AmaniSensei: How do you know? (I'm trying to get you to link correctly.) Also, wouldn't it make more sense to put the ping in front of your reply? You need some spaces in there, too. Keep at it! 👌🏽 —Grlucas (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Grlucas: I was unsure where you wanted the citation from, but now I see. You just wanted the citation. I went ahead and added a citation.Thanks--AmaniSensei (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@AmaniSensei: OK, good! However, the best place to find information about Wikipedia rules would be...? —Grlucas (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Grlucas: The best place to find information rules about Wikipedia is Wikipedia itself. 😁 --AmaniSensei (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@AmaniSensei: 👍🏼👌🏽🆒 —Grlucas (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@[[AmaniSensei|] think this was a great evaluation of the Cannonball House. An idea for expanding on the article might be adding more pictures. I'm a visual learner, so if I'm reading about something, I like to see pictures. Concerning what the house is now, there's very little information. It only says that it is used as a museum, so maybe providing a little more information on the museum would help make this article even better!

@AmaniSensei: The article sounds to be effective, with the exception of minor details. Great evaluation. Tionnetakala (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

June 10, 2019: Fifth Journal

For this week journal entry(W3 June 10 – June 16) We were required to select a topic and start drafting. I choose the Cannon Ball Article. It was either Cannon Ball Article or Ocmulgee Mounds National Historical Park.

The Ocmulgee Mounds National Historical Park is one of my options too, but I haven't seen many other students talking about the Cannon Ball Article so that must be a better choise. Good luck! Ysabella Escalona (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@AmaniSensei: Be sure to spend some time and consideration on these posts. Did you proofread? Your latter choice seems as if it would be a better one to edit. —Grlucas (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Grlucas: I was going to fix the latter choice but I had forgot. No worries, I made the correction. --AmaniSensei (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@AmaniSensei: Isn't it the "Cannonball House"? —Grlucas (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Grlucas: Yes, it's the Cannon Ball House. I made a copy edit and added a citation, based off the feedback I received from my classmates. For example, one of my peers suggested that I include a visual. And another suggested that I include more information about the actual museum and it's operations. After taking a second look at the page, I noticed the article failed to include a list or a link to upcoming events. Even one of the stubs articles I read had at least this bit of information. In order to solve this problem, I revised the page and added the necessary information. --AmaniSensei (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@AmaniSensei: "Cannonball," not "Cannon Ball." Right? —Grlucas (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

June 10, 2019: Sixth Journal

For this week's journal entry we were to pick a topic and comment on at least one other classmate’s post (June 10 – June 16). I have fulfilled these requirements. Furthermore, I find myself using Wikipedia more. Not just for class purposes but for personal uses. Wikipedia is a great place for information. You never know something until you experience it. Several instructors have told me Wikipedia is a great place for information, but I didn't really believe it. One reason, because you can easily change the information. However, as I been using Wikipedia more and more I'm coming to trust it a little more.

@AmaniSensei I find it interesting that you were told to use Wikipedia for information by instructors. My teachers throughout high school, and professors throughout college have all warned me to stay away from Wikipedia, so I haven't ever really looking through it. I do, however, agree with what you said about coming to trust it more. I feel the same way. LynzeeWhite (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 17:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

When I was in high school, WikiPedia used to be my main source. Now I do not use it for my school work, but I certainly use it for information such as someone's biography. I am glad you understand WikiPedia more now, I am still trying to learn more about how to write in here. Ysabella Escalona (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

June 16, 2019: Seventh Journal

For this week's Journal entry we were assign to start and find an article to edit. However, I choose to create an original article. Therefore, I do not have to improve an existing article for this process. There is one interesting thing I learned. I learned that Wikipedia automatically generates bots that detects if an image does not meet the licensing and third party requirements. I thought that the notification would be sent by a human carrier rather than a system. However, it's easier if a bot does the work. It would take forever if an individual had to sniff through every Wikipedia page. Computer code makes everything better most of the time. I say most of the time because I received a notification from a bot that it removed one of my images. I found this ironic because I utilized the Wikipedia's search image feature to obtain the photo. I know that you should be cautious using images from google or other websites, but in my case I used Wikipedia itself. The image was a cover of the movie, Matrix. There is a possibility that I could have posted the image again, but I choose not to. Without the image, it made the page appear more clear and concise. A classmate even praised the page for this exact feature. Hence, the comment in the next journal. This was the biggest thing I learned this week. But I also learned that Wikipedia does include graphic interchange format. I thought they didn't until I ran across one. Individuals prefer not to used them because they can be a hit or miss. It all depends on your purpose and your target audience. If you are talking about how the earth rotates then a graphic interchange format would be great. I soaked up a lot of information this week. I was familiar with some of information from the training module, but it's great to see things actually in play. I will comment on at least one other classmate’s post and attempt to show ways to improve the language, such as fixing grammatical mistakes on an article. Lastly, as far as adding citations and copyediting, these elements are going pretty smoothly. I am familiar with some of the functions now.

I would like you to read some of my articles and see if there is any language or grammatical error that should be fixed, I think I might need some help. It is very good that you decided to create your own article instead of editing an existing one, that is very original.Ysabella Escalona (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@AmaniSensei: You're missing something important here: your article link. And, yes, you do have to do the assignments; sorry. (Again, more time should be spent on these posts. What you did is not very interesting; what you learned is.) —Grlucas (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Grlucas: I agree. There is more content about what I learned. Thanks. --AmaniSensei (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

June 16, 2019: Eighth Journal

I learned something interesting today. I did not know Wikipedia's software automatically creates a table of contents. As I created three plus head sections it was automatically created. One of my classmates actually confirmed this. I was unaware of this information until I looked at that classmates' post. Moreover, for this week's journal entry we were assigned to choose a topic of our choice and comment on at least one other student's post. I decided to let Wikipedia choose my article for me. Wikipedia randomly generated this article.  My assessment of the article is that it is a disappointment. The article needs some expanding. It lacked a lot of quality information. The article is about Alexander Gavrilov. Many of you have probably never heard of him, and neither did I. In order to make this individual more well-known I decided to do a little research. For starters, I did a quick google search. The only information I could find is the information on this website and it was basically the same information that was on the Wikipedia page. Next, I did a google scholar search and looked through some of the databases. I came up with no results. After reexamining the article, it seems to be a stub page. More than likely it will continue to be as such. In order to solve this problem we would need court records from his mother country. There is not much information about him on the web. All we know is that Alexander Gavrilov was a Russian literary critic and editor.

@AmaniSensei: I looked ahead to see the work that you've done on your original article and I'm quite impressed! It has reliable sources and also is concise!Tionnetakala (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tionnetakala: Appreciate it! --AmaniSensei (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@AmaniSensei: Wow, I didn't know that either. Funny thing is, I was reading through some of our assignments and was thinking about how and what table of contents I would add, then boom, I come across your article. Raequel.Sank (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

June 17, 2019: Ninth Journal

I have my topic for my final project. I have a clear sense of direction where I am going with my topic. I have already made up my mind. In order to keep things interesting I decided to look up some random topics for fun. I ran across this article. This article is rather informative. I was amazed with this article, compared to the previous one. The previous one lacked information, and this one has quite too much. This article has quite too much of a primary source(s). I always thought this was a good thing, however Wikipedia begs to differ. This was the first thing that jumped out at me. It is important to diversify your sources. Too much of one thing can be bad. This would not be a great topic because there is not a lot of secondary information available on this topic. I would have to take a field trip to gather more information. Although, that would not be a bad idea-don't have the time.

June 17, 2019: Tenth Journal

There are many interesting topics out there. The difficult thing is finding one. The Blacksmiths festival would be an interesting topic to cover. However, there is not much coverage on this topic. First and foremost, the festival doesn't even take place in the USA. So it wouldn't even be a quick field trip compared to some other topics. At first glance of the page, I wondered why they did not include an image. An image is a quick way to grab someone's attention. Furthermore, I learned that there are three settings you can place your picture. Also, I confirmed there is no way you can insert a video. You can only include a link. This keeps the information clear and concise. I learned that you can include a picture inside of a table.

July 1, 2019: Eleventh Journal

It's journal eleven so it's time to start closing in on our topic. In the beginning we were assign to choose a topic and add on to it, or create an article on our own. I thought why not be original. I choose a topic that interests me. If I hadn't choose this current topic, I would have picked something surrounding video games, and how they can help school systems. In other words, virtual learning. Lastly, I did not develop a social media plan.

July 1, 2019: Twelfth Journal

As far as the final project goes and as far as the requirement for this week's journal; I created an original article. Click consciousness

@AmaniSensei: "Click here"? Is that a good way to link? Interesting article. Surely you could incorporate much of that into already existing articles on Wikipedia? Also, remember what this journal is for: practice is great — like writing your article — but this is a process journal. What did you learn by doing that? It's seems like I've reminded you about this before? —Grlucas (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Grlucas: There is a possibility that the article could have been incorporated it into an already existing article. However, most of the articles are generally fixed on one field of study either philosophy or physics. Most articles do not integrate the two fields of study. I totally agree about the click here link. I added a better description. Side note: for some reason the link to one of my peer review feedback did not insert on the talk page so I will include a link here. --AmaniSensei (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

July 8, 2019: Thirteenth Journal

No, I did not take a field trip. However, I am thrilled to find out who actually did. If any student did, I'm sure it was a cool experience. Next few things to accomplish is to finalize the final project and work on the reflective essay.

@AmaniSensei: Your journal posts would be so much better if you did them weekly — as you learned and experienced writing for Wikipedia. These are cursory; they should be much more informative and thoughtful by this point. Let me ask you this: who is your audience for this post? In other words: who would it appeal to? —Grlucas (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Grlucas: I understand. For this particular journal entry my response was based off the rubric. I did not have much to add. I will have more information in the reflective essay. At this point, I have pretty much mastered most of the skills on Wikipedia. The only thing I'm learning is useful/interesting information from different articles I'm reading/have read.--AmaniSensei (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@AmaniSensei: "Mastered"? I have been using Wikipedia for years and I still learn new things all the time. I'm not sure it I'll ever master it. What about writing? One of the first things you should have learned in this course is that writing should be usable and scan-able when meant for the screen, yet your next post is neither. You do not even have a references section at the bottom of your page here. Yes, you have a literacy, but I think "mastered" might be an overstatement. —Grlucas (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@AmaniSensei: Also, when do you plan on working on your chosen article, Cannonball House? You made a change back in June (with no citation), but you have not touched it since. More work needs to be accomplished for this to count as a significant contribution, or you need to choose a couple more articles to assist with. —Grlucas (talk) 11:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Grlucas: When I mentioned mastery I was referencing some of the skills that I learned in the training modules. There are some tools and gadgets on Wikipedia I have yet to master, but as far as some of the fundamentals and getting your point across for Wikipedia and remaining neutral as possible , I believe I have mastered. As far as the article, I made a copy edit to it a while back. I even made a few more. I checked the my dashboard and it states Edits by: AmaniSensei "could not fetch authorship data"; The edits are there when I look on the Cannonball House page. I don't know what seems to be the problem, but the assignment has been completed. AmaniSensei (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@AmaniSensei: OK, but you might want to read through the requirement again. —Grlucas (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Grlucas: Thanks, I misread the directions. The task was to improve the language. The correct grammatical changes were made; I see the changes inside my dashboard. AmaniSensei (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

July 14, 2019: Fourteenth Journal

What an amazing yet challenging course. I learn a lot throughout this course. From day one I saw growth from within myself. And from day two and three I saw growth from my classmates. We really helped and aided one another throughout this course. During the article evaluation I learn that there are two kinds of articles. An article that gets its message across to the audience, and one that does not. Overall, I learn lessons from both types of articles. The bad ones showed me what not to do. The good ones showed my areas where I can improve on. My approach was very simple. At first glance, I asked myself, did this article pass or failed. Your first impression is usually everything. (Although, it’s not the end all by all). From there I looked at the minute details. I read the information and checked out the sources. I also learned that Wikipedia makes my job easier by labeling an article. Wikipedia has a ranking system. With stub being the least and star being one of the featured ones. I choose to create my own article so there wasn’t anything I needed to add. But if I did need to add anything, I would add something that the article was lacking. If it lacked information, I would have found information. If the article lacked visuals and graphs, I would have search for visuals and graphs. I would have done everything that was needed to get the article to a star status. There was no summary of my edits. I created my own. I did add pictures to my article. It did make the page seem more sophisticated. I believe everyone has their way of doing things. What works for me may not work for somebody else and vice versa. My advice/contribution is to do what works for you. I did not receive a lot of feedback form Wikipedia editors. Although I did receive a message from a bot, about a picture I had posted. I mentioned this in a previous journal entry. In general, I learned that Wikipedia is a close-knit community. I saw several familiar usernames throughout this semester, and not necessarily my classmates’. I have never completed an assignment/course like this before. This is one of a kind. Wikipedia is a great way to improve public understanding of a field/topic for the simple fact that this information can be easily edited. This is important because, if one has the correct and accurate information then one can quickly add it. This is vital if one wants the world to have updated information. If I didn’t learn anything else, I learned that Wikipedia is a great starting place for information. My teachers always told me this information and I took their word for it. I was able to verify this information via one of my journals post which I was challenged to. I accepted the challenge. I saw firsthand that even Wikipedia states this information.--AmaniSensei (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)