User:Rotgerdavid189/sandbox

Week 2

• Wikipedians often talk about "content gaps." What do you think a content gap is, and what are some possible ways to identify them?

A "content gap" is when a Wikipedia article contains a lot of information about a specific topic or subject but lacks a sense of continuity. What I mean by this is that there might be a very fleshed out introduction with various citations from great neutral sources and a perfect conclusion full of information, but there is no real connection between the two. Content gaps are holes in the continuity of the information which is a poor attribute for an encyclopedia which is supposed to provide the maximum possible information on a specific topic.

• What are some reasons a content gap might arise? What are some ways to remedy them?

Content gaps aren't necessarily flaws in the author or creator of an article, it is just a sign that the "Wikipedian" lacks enough knowledge on a specific topic to plug the holes in an article. A content gap is remedied by other editors who can contribute to an article with their own knowledge to be added to the original article. If a topic isn't convoluted or massively expansive, then content gaps can be remedied by a Wikipedian simply doing more research and really taking careful consideration when creating their article.

• Does it matter who writes Wikipedia?

The concept of Wikipedia being the "Free Encyclopedia" denotes the sense of freedom and anonymity when it comes to creating articles. But this is actually not the case. While anyone can become a "Wikipedian", information must be appropriate and legitimate, there are millions of editors on Wikipedia who want to truly legitimize Wikipedia as an education alternative to a physical encyclopedia as well as a very intricate algorithm dedicated to catching any misinformation or brevity on a topic that isn't dedicated entirely to their subject.

• What does it mean to be "unbiased" on Wikipedia? How is that different, or similar, to your own definition of "bias"?

Being "unbiased" on Wikipedia means to be absolutely neutral and make sure that any content you add to Wikipedia is derived from numerous independent sources. My personal definition to "bias" is simply believing that you understand a specific subject and try to not allow emotions to interfere with it, which is nowhere near the level of meticulous researching that Wikipedia dubs as being "unbiased".

Week 4

• • • Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information. Why?
      • Sources are vital to the fundamental function of a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia upholds validity and thorough research to the highest possible standard. A good "Wikipedian" will take into account that the content he produces is not solely for himself and that it is meant to be viewed on a massive scale to potentially anyone on the planet. Publishing information and articles onto Wikipedia can seem pretty daunting due to the fact that Wikipedia strives to contain the absolute best free information on the internet on virtually any conceivable subject. Blog posts and press releases are heavily opinionated and are not derived from multiple academic sources from various objective perspectives. The most inherent flaw with these sources is the lack of perspective, when the largest contribution to the source is a single individual, it doesn't matter if the individual used over a hundred sources, that person will still be victim to vanity and be slightly subjective. Blog posts and press releases contain too much emotion and passion that skews the quality of the source. It might be interesting to read a blog post or press release to understand how a specific person feels about a topic, but it should be avoided entirely for Wikipedia since Wikipedia is trying to be a legitimate academic medium.
    • What are some reasons you might not want to use a company's website as the main source of information about that company?
      • A company's website yields the same problem as a Blog post or press release, It doesn't uphold objective information, it is intent on making a potential customer to that company feel comfortable with it. One might gain insight on the founding of the company and information that might make a company seem more "likable" or friendly, but no statistics or information about failure will be published to a website created by a company. An academic source that would fall into Wikipedia's niche needs to be peer reviewed or at the least be derived of various academic sources/perspectives. Objectivity is key when it comes to Wikipedia or any encyclopedia for that matter. The people reading Wikipedia need information, not an opinion on information.
    • What is the difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism?
      • A copyright violation is blatant stealing written work from a source that is not in the public domain, i.e. still under the legal discretion of an author or corporation. Copying text directly from Harry Potter would be a copyright violation that is a legal issue and not an issue with information. Plagiarism is an issue with Wikipedia and the content that Wikipedia is attempting to make public to readers. Plagiarism is copying text that is not necessarily illegal, but still not the ideas of the writer of the article. Plagiarism would be copying lyrics to a 50 year old song that is in the public domain for example or writing text from the Bible or directly from another academic source. The text could be legally obtained and might even be applicable to a particular subject, but the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide objective information and facts on a specific topic, not copy and paste another person's work into your article.
    • What are some good techniques to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism?
      • To avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism, the key is taking good, detailed notes on a subject that comes from multiple sources. When taking notes, a Wikipedian shouldn't copy phrases or excerpts directly from one source, multiple sources should be accumulated to develop a central idea that a Wikipedian should take note of an add to their article. Close paraphrasing and plagiarism are both direct results of not having enough sources which leads to the writer of a Wikipedia article not having enough insight on a particular topic to develop his or her own idea on the topic.
    • Charles François Dumouriez
      • I chose this Wikipedia page to do research on primarily because it is the character that I am doing the most research on due to it being my assigned character in the "Reacting to the Past" game. I have already delved into the history of this character and have grown quite attached to him. Also, the Wikipedia page for him is lacking a lot of information as it is only 3 sections currently and covers his life quite superficially. I assume it is not an active page due to there being no recent additions to the talk page, and the majority of the information that was added to this page was due to a project that Wikipedia was incorporating called the "Military History Wikiproject" which means that not a lot of authors have been dedicated to this page.

Week 5

Adding More Content and Possibly Adding a New Section

I'm going to add slightly more information about how Dumouriez was partly responsible for the expulsion of the Girondin party in 1793 due to their support of him when he was viewed as an enemy to Paris for his desire to not kill the King. Also, I will be mentioning how Dumouriez would try to dissolve the Convention in Paris with his Army in 5 April 1793 much like Lafayette before him, but the result being his army refusing and him escaping, which was a treasonous act. My Source for this will be: And this will be placed underneath the Section titled "Career During the Revolution" Also, I will mention that the victory at the battle of Jemmappes proved the might and strength of the French military under Dumouriez's leadership which is proven by the painting "French Victory at Jemmappes" which was published in the newspaper Révolutions de Paris on 17 November 1792. Also in 14 November 1792 another painting was featured in this newspaper that depicted Dumouriez as the liberator of the Belgians when entering Brussels after the victory at Jemmappes. Source: Which also used the following Sources to compile this data:

Also, an additional source with information that I utilized:

Article Draft

Text I will integrate into the Sub Heading "Career during the Revolution"

On August 24, 1792, Dumouriez wrote to his ally General François Kellermann about the void in military power within France. Within this letter, Dumouriez voices his opinions adamantly that Lafayette was a "traitor" to France after being arrested for mobilizing his army from the borders of France to Paris to protect the Royal family from revolutionaries that were dissatisfied with the monarchy of France at the time. Within this letter, Dumouriez's attachment to the Jacobin club is explicitly present as he tells Kellermann that the army was finally "purged of aristocrats". Dumouriez's loyalty to France's military which was evident within this letter was instrumental to him ascending to his future position of Foreign Minister of France from March 1792 to June of 1792 and becoming a military hero for his decisive victory at Jemappes in which the newspaper Révolutions De Paris proclaimed him the liberator of the Belgians.