User:RM395/Course/Week 05

What was one of the most helpful Wikipedia articles you've read recently? What aspects of its content, style, or presentation made it so good?

David Akers

Last night I hosted a Super Bowl party, and my friend and I were sitting next to each other when David Akers missed his first attempt at a field goal to make it 23-28 in a close game. Luckily, the kicker was run into, drawing a penalty and another chance. Anyway, they showed his statistics and how he had been the worst kicker in the NFL this season and my friend made a comment about how he sucked and they should cut him. I said he didn't suck he was one of the better kickers from my lifetime and he was just getting old and needed to retire. My friend didn't know he used to be really good so we used wikipedia to settle the argument and found a very thorough article documenting his statistics each season of his career, and when he made the pro bowl (6 times), etc.--Mdcoope3 (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Capacitors

I am in physics 212 this semester and we are talking about capacitors and the charge/energy/electric fields associated with them. I had absolutely no background in capacitors and I haven't taken physics since high school, so I went to the Wikipedia page about capacitors. This page was incredibly helpful because it was a "one-stop-shop" for all the equations and constants we used in class. It provided easily understood explanations for each aspect of the capacitor problems we were working on. The style was also helpful because all the equations on the page are separate with a different font so that they are easily found. All of the information provided was basic enough for me to understand and the headings/topics made it easy to go straight to the information that I needed.Kslinker5493 (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I have noticed that Wikipedia has been great for obtaining technical information. I use it all the time for computer science related things and it always proves very useful. It helps to have a bit of a background on the information that way you can make sure that it isn't made up/inaccurate.--MartellRedViper (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Rhetoric Class

I took a class on Rhetorical Theory this past semester and found it to be very difficult to understand the material by simply reading the textbook. In this class we were reading dialogues from ancient rhetoricians such as Aritotle, Plato and Socrates and having no background in ancient philosophy or rhetoric, I was pretty overwhelmed by the reading assignments. To me, it was like reading gibberish and I couldn't begin to make sense of it. I began to use Wikipedia to get a basic summary of the texts before reading each author's dialogue and was very surprised at the depth of information offered on these ancient readings. I assumed there would be autobiographical information on the major rhetoricians, but was not expecting to find information on specific works written by the authors. It turned out Wikipedia had a page for every reading assignment we were assigned and was actually quite through in its breakdown of information and explanations. Some of the more popular works were covered a bit more extensively, however, I was impressed that some of the lesser known readings had a page at all, let alone accurate and helpful information. Wikipedia definitely saved my ass in this class. The information provided and its organization was essential in allowing me to understand the complex language of the readings in layman's terms. --Ryenocerous (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I myself have used Wikipedia to de-complicate readings. Not only did Wikipedia help by providing info on the texts in question, but it provided information about the history as well as the context of what I was reading. I was totally surprised that Wikipedia could help so much with something so complicated!--Tabbboooo (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Superbowl

My parents are having a Superbowl party today, and my stepdad and stepbrother got into an argument about the history of the Superbowl (and were betting on the answer). The Superbowl article not only provided enough info to settle the fight, it talked about the Superbowl from literally every angle imaginable. Stadiums, teams, franchises, history, entertainment,programming....it was all there. Not only was it there, it was incredibly thorough. It was one of the most thorough and wide range info articles Ive ever read. Id say the content was what made it so good.--Tabbboooo (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting use of Wikipedia. Did your stepdad and stepbrother accept Wikipedia as a source, that is, as authoritative enough to settle the argument? Nobody raised objections -- 'Wikipedia is unreliable, anybody can write anything they want there'? --Brodmont (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

If it were me, I would definintely accept Wikipedia as a source for something like the Superbowl. Since there is a large social aspect to it and most everyone can understand the rules and regulations of the game, a Wiki page written by the common person should be relatively accurate. It's moreso the pages that have a much more technical or academic aspect to them when I personally start to question their accuracy. Kslinker5493 (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, Wikipedia is best put to use for solving arguments. It truly is a godsend when all you have is a smartphone and you are desperate to make the point that you are right. --Tinaface86 (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Fire Emblem

I am a HUGE video game fan on February 4th a new "Fire Emblem" game is coming out for the Nintendo 3DS. This turn-by-turn RPG has been popular in USA for 5-8 years now, and even longer in Japan. Over the years, there have been many different installments of the game and most of them take place before or after the other (story-wise). With games being released in Japan, USA has only seen a few versions that have been translated into English. For someone like myself that wants to know the chronology of the lore/story, then Wikipedia is the answer. The article has every Fire Emblem game ever made, in USA or Japan. Each of these games have their own links so that I can specifically read about them on their own article. To have a Japanese game summarized in a translated English article is one of the most powerful ways one can use Wikipedia.--Thepresidenthal (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Temperature Inversion

I'm writing an article about the recent apocalyptic smog in Beijing, China. I found myself needing a simple, quick definition of "temperature inversion." Wikipedia is often very good for getting a nutshell definition like that. The article for "inversion" is actually flagged as needing additional references. However, it was good enough for this purpose, and its one reference had a link to a glossary on the NOAA web site, so I could cite a source in my article. In reality, this was not a really great article, but it was just-in-time, and just-good-enough. --Brodmont (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Woodblock Printing

I took a World Literature class last semester. Each person had to do a presentation. I choose traditional Japanese woodblock printing. I started on Wikipedia to find a basic overview and sources to start with. Organization was a big part of why the article was good. The article sections were clear and had a logical order. The bullet points in various sections helped the important information be clear. They also had the Japanese word for different key terms and techniques, which I appreciated. --Jeflicki (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Traditional Japanese woodblock printing is definitely a foreign practice to me and probably to most outside of Japanese culture. I can relate to using Wikipedia on a topic that I have no information on. I have had to write plenty of papers on topics that I had little information on and Wikipedia always provided to most abundant and organized information. --Ryenocerous (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

True Blood

I couldn't remember what season Eric lost his memory in, so I decided to utilize Wikipedia. I was surprised at how thorough the page was. There are synopses for every season and character descriptions for all the major characters. The page also includes information about the marketing and reception of the show. It also addresses the LGBT themes that have been discussed by Alan Ball and Charlaine Harris. I would say that some of the information is biased, like maybe it was written by fans who didn't like certain charactersRebaduck (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC).

I also used Wikipedia for a TV show, and found it very helpful, except in my case I wanted to know if the anime, Bleach, was still an ongoing tv show. My dad, who watches a lot of anime, had told me that it ended, but I didn't believe him so I went to wikipedia to check. While the manga was still ongoing, it turns out that the anime ended already. The organization of the page was very helpful, because you can see "Original run" to the side under the status of both the manga and the anime. Not only that, they had a source that lead me to an article where they actually declared that the show was ending. --MangoDango (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I use Wikipedia frequently to research TV shows of all kinds. Wikipedia has so many authors that there are bound to be a number who are interested even in TV shows that were discontinued long ago. The networks have little or no investment in old shows, but Wikipedia provides a good consistent platform for keeping shows alive.--Brodmont (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I also use Wikipedia to look up information about shows or about episodes that are in a certain series. Its really hard to find any other source that goes into so much depth about characters or individual episodes like Wikipedia does. If Wikipedia was not there I would probably have to go a poorly made fan site or I would have no information at all becuse networks dont invest in shows that are off the air. --Youngpenn (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if a particular character page should be biased though. Did you go to a page about Eric or a page about True Blood in general? A page about Eric should probably lean more towards making him seem important, pointing out who his enemies are, etc. When writing about a character, taking a point of view from that character would make sense wouldn't it?--MartellRedViper (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Music

So I know this is not a specific Wikipedia page, but I always use Wikipedia to look up music artists. I listen to an unhealthy amount of electronica music and sometimes it's hard to keep up with which sub-genres different artists fall under. When I can't tell by listening to the music, I can easily use Wikipedia to look up whether an artist is considered "electro-house" or "moombahton." Wikipedia makes this really convenient by having a box on the right of each artist's page that clearly denotes the genre. This consistent and easy to spot presentation is the aspect that draws me to look up music artsits on Wikipedia. I know exactly where to look on the page every time I search for an artist. --Eems.p (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia makes things very convenient by having organized boxes on the right of pages! Not only music, but you can see this in TV shows, animal species, countries, etc. I think by doing this, it creates a "in a nutshell" or an "at a glance" section that people can look to without having to skim the entire article to find one piece of data. --MangoDango (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Music is what I use Wikipedia for fairly often as well. Especially to look up discographies of bands and artists to see when certain albums came out. Often times, I've gone to look at a certain artist on Wikipedia only to find information about upcoming tours and music releases that haven't even happened yet, and that are updated before I've even heard anything about them.--Eng395jy (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I find music pages very helpful, too. Most of the time it's a band on YouTube that I hadn't heard before. Without Wikipedia, it's almost impossible to find the band's old music, etc., even for bands I listen to daily. So every once in a while I'll check their pages to see if a new CD is coming out or if they're playing nearby. --Information-01152001 (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The review aggregation for music pages is really helpful for me when deciding to purchase an album. I've also used Wikipedia many times to download album art and get song track names that iTunes can't complete. --Katerwaul (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

American Civil War

The one page that really stands out for me in terms of helpfulness has to be the American Civil War page. I needed a quick refresher on the Civil War for a short story I was writing, and instead I found myself spending hours on that page and the pages it links to, learning more than I had ever hoped to learn. It's very well-researched and documented, as you can see from the references list. I also think it's laid out in a very straight-forward, organized manner. --Katerwaul (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I was shocked to see how much information was on the page. It is very well organized and has excellent visual aids. All the pictures and charts were a great addition to the page. Just from merely skimming the page I learned something I never knew: according to the page, one in thirteen veterans were amputees.--Jastout (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

List of Stanley Cup Champions

I was recently trying to remember back to which team won the Stanley Cup the year I was born and found a page with a list of Stanley Cup Champions that goes back over 100 years. The list is so convenient because it is all on one page. All of the research has been done to put together the list so somebody does not have to research each individual year. Not only was the list convenient, but it was also accurate. Some teams have changed names over the years since when the NHL started and Wikipedia also documents that as well. The page also shows the runner up, coach, and score of the series. These things would not be hard to find individually online but with a Wikipedia list page it saves a massive amount of time.--SJRick (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I have also found that the Wikipedia pages that are simply giant lists are very accurate. If the point of a wiki page is to be able to get relatively basic information very quickly, the lists definitely fulfill that need. There's no fluffy language to read through; you simply the get facts. Kslinker5493 (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I would also say that these sorts of lists make excellent time-killers/party games. Find a bunch of, in this case, hockey fans, throw random years out and you have yourself some amazing free trivia questions. For example, if you don't know that the Toronto Maple Leafs won the 1967 Stanley Cup- drink up, my friend.--Tinaface86 (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Soccer information

I haven't been keeping up with my favorite soccer team, Newcastle United, lately and wanted to know who they signed during the transfer period; they picked up two player I hadn't heard of before. Wikipedia actually does a nice job with roster design. Beside everyone's name their county's flag is listed along with their position. In addition to the team's first team squad the page also includes player out on loan. Newcastle isn't the biggest club or most popular so it's nice to see that they have a big page with a lot of information.--Jastout (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point! Roster design for sports teams on Wikipedia is definitely really clear and easy to navigate. Tables in general on Wikipedia are designed pretty well. I've seen lots of tables presenting information such as discographies, timelines, really anything that can be organized. It's really helpful for efficiently conveying information. The design for each page is similar and can therefore save the viewer (assuming he or she is somewhat familiar with Wikipedia) from having to extensively search for desired information. --Eems.p (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

USS Constitution

I remember having to do a paper on the USS Constitution and I started by reading up on its history on wikipedia before I did any more in depth research. I found it to be very helpful since the article was organized very well. It had diffrent segments for each battle the ship was in along with information about its construction. It also had this table next to the article listing all sorts of interesting facts about the ship. I found the organization of the article to be very helpful since I was just using it as a starting off point for my own research. --Youngpenn (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a good source to use to gather school information such as the USS Constitution just to give you a starting point. Not only is it beneficial in gathering information in a organized way in which it is easy to navigate throughout the page it also is good for obtaining important information and a starting place for actual sources. The Wikipedia article dealing with the USS Constitution below has 9 references that can actually be sited when writing a given essay or initial resources. The page has pictures and contains important contribution from peers who probably had to do the same essay in class dealing with the USS Constitution. Organization, and ready actual sources made this a good article to explore. Not only that but reading perspectives from other users and seeing images help me better understand the course material. --Isaiahgee (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Binary Search

One article that I found useful recently was the article on binary search. I was doing homework for my file organization and processing class and I had to implement a binary search algorithm. I know how they work and I have implemented one of them before but I decided to look it up on Wikipedia to see if I could come up with a more efficient algorithm. One thing that I really liked about this page is that is showed the time efficiencies for the algorithm right at the top in a table to the right. This was an important part of the assignment. When looking at an algorithm the time efficiency is one of the most important aspects and having it right there was very nice. I also really liked that the article had pseudo code implementations of the algorithm. From reading this I actually liked how they were implementing the algorithm better than I was thinking of implementing it. I also liked that they had both recursive and iterative variations of the algorithm. Both of these were easy to find and they had a special formatting for code, which I also really liked. The only thing that was missing that I have seen on algorithms on Wikipedia before an animated GIF. This demonstrated how the algorithm performed in a visual manner, which is always very useful. --MartellRedViper (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Russian Civil War

One of the most helpful Wikipedia articles I've read recently is on the Russian Civil War. I'm taking a Russian literature course, and a great deal of in-class discussion involves historical context. Wikipedia provides this for me. It's difficult to judge characters' actions, especially in fictional works, before we understand why they feel this way. For instance, the Red Guard often referred to the White movement as hypocritical. The Whites criticized Vladimir Lenin for signing the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which gave nearly one-fourth of Russia's arable land to Germany (the country's enemy in World War I), but the Whites also frequently purchased weapons from Germany, something we couldn't have known without historical context. Thus, the novels become much clearer. This is one of the reasons I contributed a "Criticism" section to the Volunteer Army page for one of our previous assignments. --Information-01152001 (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Breakup of Yugoslavia

...and related articles: Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro, Serbia, Montenegro and Slovenia -- and others. It turns out I could more easily perform brain surgery than fully comprehend the breakup of Yugoslavia. I was doing some light research about someone whose career involved multiple trips to the region over the course of many decades, which I found to be incredibly complicated. How could you go to the same city in '91 and again in '94 and again in '03 and have each trip be to a different country? I was frustrated it took me 10 minutes on Wikipedia to get the general grasp on the history, but in retrospect, it's easier than the hours it would have taken me to research it in textbooks. Or, I could have taken the 2-minute option and called my know-it-all mother (the pre-Wikipedia sum of all human knowledge), but I wouldn't give her the satisfaction. Yay for simplified history lessons on Wikipedia! I'm glad someone else cared enough to pour in the hours of research to write those articles!Luna002 (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Doctor Who

I wanted to know about the series the other day, because I know that it was on first in the 60s, but I wasn't sure when they started the new series. It was really clear and informative, and I read it on my phone, which I always like because it doesn't feel like so much reading. You can actually read the whole thing and look at the pictures without skimming. Some articles on the computer are really long paragraphs that aren't broken up well. The article on Doctor Who was really detailed without being boring and it was crazy to see how a show could still be so incredibly popular after all this time and all the different actors. It reminded me of James Bond. The British are good at that. Anyway, I couldn't sleep so I just looked it up on my phone and that was that. It was lovely. --Tinaface86 (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Mass Effect

I've been getting really into the Mass Effect game series lately, and admittedly have been surfing the web seeking up random trivia bits online. I think this counts, but I've been heavily surfing the wikia made specifically for the game series. I love these little random wikis because they too have their own little system of people maintaining and adding to its database. It's definitely not as polished as the average Wikipedia page, there being a lot less polishing of pages for "good article" statuses and whatnot, but there are loads of information that people have gathered from all over the place and placed into these articles. Most main articles are quite long and detailed. I had the same experience back when I used to surf the Halo wikia, which was actually my first experience getting a bit involved and helping edit a little. I'm a little less pathetic now and mostly stick to reading random facts, which I guess is still kind of sad but really it's just a testament to the powerful narratives in the series that I feel most people don't think games would have. It definitely shows in the wikia because people are pretty passionate about this created world, and it's mind boggling to think there are sizably huge wikias for other fandoms in existence. --Seannator (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)