User:MMMcS/sandbox

Article Evaluation

The article I chose that's relevant to our course is "Research"

These are the questions from my Prof. that I've attempted to answer as I read and evaluate it:

• Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic?
  • Yes. It refers to the definition of Wikipedia itself (an encyclopedia) rather than a place for new ideas (i.e. "no new research"). This is not relevant to the topic of research per se. It is relevant to Wikipedia itself.
• Is there anything that distracted you?
  • I don't care for the phrase "stock of knowledge" in the definition of research. I think of a "stock" as something that is be used/consumed and then is depleted (I don't see bodies of knowledge that way.) so using the word in this way doesn't fit my thinking.
  • I don't like the phrase "several forms of research" followed by a long (more than several!) list of inconsistently selected areas. This sentence could benefit from the using an existing system of classification like Dewey Decimal with its 10 classes. Yes, I did just look this up on Wikipedia! ; )
• Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • I find the self-references biased.
  • We learned in class that their are two types in of research: basic and applied. The article seems disorganized in presenting this top-level idea about research. It jumps into very specific types. For example, tt doesn't address social justice research (as we read about in Creswell).

• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • Only Russia has a section on Professionalism. I would look to see if there are other countries or industries that have specific structures. It could be improved.
• Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
  • Citation 3 could be improved. I went to the OED and confirmed 1577 as the first use of the term. The cite button doesn't offer APA (I wonder if it's not used in GB?). I need to learn what format Wikipedia uses for citations, but the Chicago format is:

"research, n.1". OED Online. June 2017. Oxford University Press. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/163432?rskey=XHZQxX&result=1&isAdvanced=false (accessed September 16, 2017).

• Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference
  • There are quite a few so I will just spot-check:
    • Citation 7 is a book; we learned they are not peer-reviewed. This could be removed since there is already another citation.

• Where does the information come from?
• Are these neutral sources?
• If biased, is that bias noted?
• Is any information out of date?
• Is anything missing that could be added?
• Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
• How is the article rated?
• Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Great review of Research, @MMMsC:! FULBERT (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

updates to plagiarism article

Effectiveness of in Higher Education settings

A study was conducted to test the effectiveness of plagiarism detection software in a higher education setting. One part of the study assigned one group of students to write a paper. These students were first educated about plagiarism and informed that their work was to be run through a plagiarism detection system. A second group of students was assigned to write a paper without any information about plagiarism. The researchers expected to find lower rates in group one but found roughly the same rates of plagiarism in both groups.

This looks great! Can you provide a link to the article where you will add this and then let me know when it is added? FULBERT (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)