User:Marielyguevara/sandbox

"Wiki Evaluation"

Notes on Credibility

• Citation missing on <ref>scientific credibility<ref>
• Secondary components of credibility are biased towards: personality and attractiveness.
• Information comes from Universities such as: Stanford.edu, UCSB.edu, Berkeley, etc. . These are reliable sources.
• Currently in some wiki projects such as: Business, advertising and marketing, philosophy and politics.
• Minimal edits have been made on the credibility article according to the talk section.

Marielyguevara (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Notes on No Original Research

• Don't change meaning of statements found.
• Use own words to summarize research from reliable source; every statement must be referred to a source.
• Use material that can not be challenged; it should not make the reader question credibility of the matter.
• Material from which no source can be found is considered original research.
• Primary sources:

document, artifact, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording.

• Secondary sources:

generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, evaluation of the original; it must provide author's opinion.

• Tertiary sources:

index, textual consolidation.

• Wikipedia articles are considered tertiary sources; therefore, should not be used in academic research.
• Do not combine two different statements from two reliable sources to draw a conclusion about an idea.
• A plus B is not always equal to C; this is considered original research because it expressed the editor's conclusions about a subject.
• Editors are highly encouraged to use own images (not considered original research).
• Extreme caution when using an image with reserved copyrights.
• Wikipedia has a low number of images available for editors to use.
• Translations and transcriptions into English are not considered original research.
• Routine calculations such as basic arithmetic are allowed.
• Even though the editor knows something is true, it must be verified before being added.
• Editor's own view is considered original research.
• Neutral point of view promotes multiple views for a subject.
• Article's author is not responsible for incorporating all points of view for a subject.

If article reflects a minority's opinion is considered original research.Marielyguevara (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

What I recently learned in Wikipedia

• Established producers of encyclopedias have added content from Wikipedia to their deposits.
• Wikipedia has immediately made article changes on a subject referring to the primary sources (e.g. Pluto no longer considered a planet). In contrast, some encyclopedias took years to make such changes.
• Wikipedia is a research tool used to obtain information from a topic and should not be cited as a primary source; instead, it provides the primary source where its information comes from so it can be cited in an academic research paper.
• wikipedia promotes technology skills useful in the real world.
• Ranks among one of the top ten most used websites worldwide.Marielyguevara (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

"Article Evaluation"

Viral Meningitis

The typhus article is about six pages in length, it is well structured as it presents various details about the disease. It provides: signs and symptoms, causes, prevention and treatment, epidemiology, history of the disease and plenty of references, 35, that come from several certified healthcare providers and health associations. It’s sections are relevant to the topic and written in simple, easy to understand vocabulary. However, the prevention section states no vaccine is available; cited from a web page and consequently contradicts itself stating there is a vaccine available for people, information that comes from a different source. Both statements can not be right. My assumption is that the person who stated there is a vaccine available, forgot to delete the previous sentence above it. Is this allowed? Geographical variety is provided from the American continent and Europe but it is slightly biased towards the great epidemics that occurred in Europe. For example, the massive outbreak that took place inside concentration camps in Germany during the cold war, world war two. On the talk page, racists comments are present such as: “Germans invested in showers and gas chambers.” They justified such additions as sanitary control measures for the spread of the disease. In my opinion this type of comments are very disrespectful as many people know such chambers were used to kill thousands of Jews instead of an effort to contain typhus’ spread. The article is listed as a level four vital article and rated as a start-class. It is noted to be open for further addition of information if interested. Many wiki projects are enrolled like: microbiology, indigenous peoples of the Americas, medicine and dermatology.

Typhus

The viral meningitis article leaves much to desire; it’s structure is very basic. It is about three pages long with a couple of pictures available. One of the pictures in the treatment section made me go off topic; it was a picture of the chemical composure of aciclovir, the treatment drug. The picture would be more appropriate for an article about aciclovir itself only. The data provided is not very recent, it spirals between 1988 and 1999; time updates would give the reader a sense of how often the disease affects people in actuality. On the signs and symptoms section, viral and bacterial statements go back and forth in structure making the article a bit harder to understand the differences between the two types of meningitis noted. Most references come from other articles found in several web pages. According to wikipedia, sources that come from Universities and recent journals are more reliable than those not so well recognized web pages in the media. On the talk page, a student of medicine made some suggestions for the article; I do not agree with everything he writes but some observations I also thought about before reviewing the talk page. I agree that he notes it would be helpful to provide body changes a patient experiences while the virus is active like: confusion, loss of alertness and orientation and restlessness in some cases. The article made me question: does inflammation of the meninges cause pressure in the cerebral cortex affecting behavior and higher mental processes? Is this applicable for bacterial meningitis? Or, does the treatment drug causes other chemical changes in the body therefore leading to different symptoms? Hard to tell. The article was rated high-importance and start-class. Marielyguevara (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

"Works Cited"

Snyder, Carrie L., et al. "Genetic Counseling and the Advanced Practice Oncology Nursing Role in a Hereditary Cancer Prevention Clinic: Hereditary Breast Cancer Focus (Part 1)." Breast Journal, vol. 15, Sep/Oct 2009 Supreme, pp. S2-S10. EBSCOhost, doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2009.00802.x.

Lynch, Henry T., et al. "Genetic Counseling and the Advanced Practice Oncology Nursing Role in a Hereditary Cancer Prevention Clinic: Hereditary Breast Cancer Focus (Part 2)." Breast Journal, vol. 15, Sep/Oct2009 Supreme, pp. S11-S19. EBSCOhost, doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2009.00803.x. Marielyguevara (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Dresp, Birgitta, et al. "Which Geometric Model for the Curvature of 2-D Shape Contours?." Spatial Vision, vol. 20, no. 3, Apr. 2007, pp. 219-264. EBSCOhost, 0-search.ebscohost.com.library.4cd.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=24713451&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Dresp-Langley, Birgitta. "2D Geometry Predicts Perceived Visual Curvature in Context-Free Viewing." Computational Intelligence & Neuroscience, vol. 2015, 05 Aug. 2015, pp. 1-9. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1155/2015/708759.Marielyguevara (talk) 04:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)