User talk:Grlucas/Discussion: Thinking about Wikipedia/Archive 1

NMAC 5801 (Spring '19) Discussion: Thinking About Wikipedia

What do you think of Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality"?

Wikipedia’s definition of neutrality infers the articles on its website are, as much as possible, free of any type of bias and the point of view presented does not take sides on an issue. Wikipedia suggests writing only factual information from reliable sources. Minimizing or eliminating any type of bias is difficult because there are instances where reliable sources may present a biased point of view and may misrepresent information. Researching credible information is not an easy task, requiring Wikipedia editors to evaluate and validate any and all information posted.Dillbug (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dillbug: Also well said. Taking bias out of a situation is usually difficult but must be done. I like the fact that Wikipedia's Neutrality definition refers to the International Federation of American Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. This example shows that no matter what your bias, preferences, or understandings are, there are specific things that must be done for humanitarian aid. Ssimsjones (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ssimsjones and Dillbug: Omitting bias is also challenging because even information that seems to be "factual" can demonstrate bias. What writers choose to include about a subject and what they choose to omit creates a kind of bias. Take the bio of Norris Church Mailer. The section originally headed "Life with Norman Mailer" is a good example of this. Choosing to title it Life with Norman Mailer suggests a position about her, that her life is defined by her relationship with Mailer. Choosing what facts to include or not (do you include information about her children, about being hospitalized, for example, is its own kind of bias, perhaps? JVbird (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dillbug, Ssimsjones, and JVbird: I think the beauty of Wikipedia neutrality is that you eliminate bias by citing all sides. That way, your'e not claiming an opinion, just a well-rounded explanation.@JVbird: I can see your stance on heading order and selection, though, not sure how to correct that. In part, objectivity will be in the eye of the interactor. (Dmcgonagill (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC))

@Dillbug, Ssimsjones, JVbird, and Dmcgonagill: Trimming bias when presenting information requires objective thinking, neutral language, and discernment when researching and citing sources. Contributors need to provide comprehensive information, including opposing discussions, but with complete impartiality.Mango Masala 21:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dillbug, Ssimsjones, JVbird, and Dmcgonagill: Wikipedia claims to be a neutral but how can it be neutral? For example, every individual has there own opinion and ways of thinking. To put in another perspective is if I were to write a paper about trains I will probably write what I find interesting, or used sources that come up, and none of these choices makes my paper bias. To truly make a unbias source of information is to use a standard procedure. That way no one can adjust the information or change it sort of like its set in stone.--Waebo (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I give credit for Wikipedia's attempts to stay as neutral as possible in the collection of information on a topic. I was not aware of this before this class due to other classes vehemently against the use of wikipedia and its open source/editing nature.Namir Riptide (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

What are the impacts and limits of Wikipedia as a source of information?

According to Wikipedia’s website, Wikipedia ranks 6th in most visited websites. However, even Wikipedia recognizes its limitations as a reliable source of information . Since Wikipedia is an open source site, which means anyone, anywhere can edit its information makes it almost impossible to maintain the integrity of the information posted. Eventually, any misinformation will get deleted and corrected, but in the meantime, users linking to Wikipedia may be misinformed on issues, especially biographical and political information. Users of Wikipedia should check the validity of resources referenced to ensure information posted is accurate. Dillbug (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dillbug: Very well said. I couldn't have said it better. Credible sources are very important and now knowing that anyone can post on Wikipedia makes me see exactly why sources are so paramount. My kids used to always say, people don't tell the truth on Wikipedia because they would sometimes use it for homework and get the answers wrong. Having had the chance to work with Wikipedia myself, I can now see why there can be ethical issues and some non truths. Ssimsjones (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dillbug and Ssimsjones: Another important impact is the democratization of knowledge. More than ever before, information is available to everyone, at their fingertips. Knowledge can also be updated in an instance, unlike in the past when information in published documents (including old fashioned encyclopedias, books, and journal articles) was static and slow to be updated. Because information is objective and factual, this also encourages users to build their analytical and critical thinking skills and to form their own analysis or interpretation of information. This can be a possible limitation, if users's own biases come into play in how they do interpret and use the information they get from Wikipedia. There is still a stigma of course that will continue to limit the use of Wikipedia as a reliable, academic source as well. JVbird (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dillbug, Ssimsjones, and JVbird: I agree with the problems you have all acknowledged. After reading the Carroll chapters this week I want to add that as things are deleted, notifications are not necessarily given on the changes made which adds to the misinformation. Interactors retrieving information from Wikipedia are not going to go back regularly to reconcile their facts with pages they don't even realize have been edited, which why would they? (Dmcgonagill (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC))

@Dillbug and Ssimsjones: That also seems to be the argument made in academic circles, that because Wikipedia is open, because it is constantly changing, at what point do we know that the information is in fact reliable and valid? Our Wikipedia training emphasizes that it all depends on the large group of Wikipedia editor/writer/contributors, but are they in there constantly looking for every detail for correctness? Can that even physically happen? JVbird (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@JVbird: That's a great point Josef. It would be interesting to know if it's even possible given the fact that so many articles are on Wikipedia and if there are even enough contributors to consistently maintain the reliability and validity of information or if it takes years to. This is interesting enough to make me look at last edit dates and contributions on articles when I research something on Wikipedia going forward.Ssimsjones (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dillbug, Ssimsjones, JVbird, and Dmcgonagill: These are excellent points. As Wiki is accessible to anyone, we have to view it with a healthy amount of caution. For topics or subjects with invested and conscientious editors and readers, I’m quicker to trust in the research and citations. I trust in the peer-review process, but many users won’t consider the value in questioning credibility on Wikipedia. This is especially worrisome for pages that aren’t reviewed and corrected on a consistent basis. It’s important to check when a page was last edited when evaluating an article’s reliability.Mango Masala 22:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC) @

The major impact I see is that it has taken over much of news coverage. It seems like modern new media seems to try for sensationalism , much as it once did at the beginning of the last century. And Wikipedia, while aiming to be a living encyclopedia that does not have to go through censorship for information to be recorded.

The limit, I think ,is only that even editors can still understand the same material in differing ways and despite being dispassionate, can 'correct' an article to lean or blatantly state something in their views. Since Wikipedia and it's offspring are living constructs, it can still have personality and opinions even within neutral, supported, documented articles. However, pedians and the editors do a fairly good job at working against such limits.Namir Riptide (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. What kinds of sources does this exclude?Can you think of any problems that might create?

Some blogs and web forums can be excluded as a reliable source. People tend to post more of their feelings and communicate whether or not they agree or do not agree on specific topics in these forums. I consider these to be more of reliable opinions of people and not reliable sources.Ssimsjones (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ssimsjones: Any source that cannot be verified would also need to be excluded. One possible problem is that published sources can very quickly become outdated. This could impact the accuracy of information currently posted on Wikipedia. JVbird (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@JVbird: I agree. With such stringent requirements for reliable sources, Wikipedia will not be able to keep up with other more current information sources as live news blogging. Per our current reading assignment in Carroll, those need to be edited as they go but the benefit is in the speed of disseminating information. When I think about it, even though Wikipedia requires more in depth vetting of sources up front, it is still a constant work in process; so how is it more reliable than live news blogging (for instance), if live news blogging also edits for accuracy as it goes...? (Dmcgonagill (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC))

@JVbird: Reputable newspaper or magazine corrections are typically presented at the end of the article or listed within a 'corrections' section. Although corrections and edits are noted, to me, the latter seems less forthright as readers need to specifically check if corrections were made. Unless readers know to view the article's history (or look to see when last edited) corrections aren't as evident on Wikipedia.Mango Masala 00:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dmcgonagill: My impression is that a lot of news bloggers are either simply repeating what other bloggers and news reporters are posting or that because the emphasis is, as Carroll notes, on getting information out there in the quickest amount of time, that naturally some accuracy is going to be lost. How much is the question and who is hurt by it are also important questions. We demand information now, immediately, and readers/consumers seem to be willing to give up that accuracy, even if it turns out the information is entirely wrong. I just wonder how many consumers actually go back, get clarification, and then adjust their mindset. JVbird (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ssimsjones: I totally agree with about blog post and web forms not being a reliable source. On the flip side News Tv has broadcast live stream video on cable tv, but how is this reliable. News tv like (CNN, FOX NEWS, CBS) are all news stations that provides live stream news, but in today's society, any digital information can be changed or edited.

It excludes the works of the topic or those with investment in the topic, such as the subject or subjects created by an entity. It also excludes itself as a reliable source. I find that to be for the better as cyclical referencing has always been a joke. Ugly: See hideous, Hideous: see Ugly.

If Wikipedia were written 100 years ago, how might its content (and contributors) be different?What about 100 years from now?

This is a very interesting question. 100 years ago would make Wikipedia available in 1919. If it existed during this timeframe, I think it would have been the start of the invention of Wikipedia. I think everyone would just write information and it be combined into one big book, similar to the "Book of Guinness World Records or the information found in Historic Preservation books with the really fine paper", since computers were not invented at that time. I can imagine the Historic Preservation books because I get to physically see them at work and have to limit touching the pages, due to the oils in my fingers. Everyone had such neat handwriting and these books house everything from wills, to marriage licenses, to many other things. I think people would have been their own reliable sources for the information created in Wikipedia. If anything, they would probably converse with each other and add information about each other but I don't think reliable publications would have been utilized as much. Wikipedia would just contain contents of the life of each person that accessed it. I can also imagine it being written with the fine point pens dabbed in ink with the feather on it. Fast forward, 100 years later would make Wikipedia available in 2119. It would be more advanced, provide more reliable information due to research by historians, provide more reliable sources from publications, web site information, and any other programs that will be created from now until 2119. Either way it would be interesting to see the vast difference between 100 years ago and 100 years later. Ssimsjones (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ssimsjones: I like your thought process, very interesting. In its current form, I don't think it could have existed 100 years ago, it would merely be Encyclopedia Britannica, or something like that. But, 100 years from now, I see it relaxing to allow less reliable sources to compete with the immediacy of other live reporting of information. (Dmcgonagill (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC))

@Ssimsjones:100 years ago, literacy rates would have been much lower and information would have mostly come from educated, upper class, wealthy people and be about issues relevant to their lives. That would certainly have contributed to a clear bias in favor of this social and economic group's self interests. JVbird (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@JVbird: I think you are absoluate right by the only contriubutor will be the weathly individual. Waebo (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@JVbird: Absolutely, Josef. Although literacy rates have improved from a century ago (as we hope they continue to do 100 years from now), there will still be those who try to manipulate the accessibility of authentic, neutral information. If Wikipedia intends to exist in the future, its community must remain faithful to their mission of fair and balanced information. Mango Masala 01:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@JVbird: Good point! (Dmcgonagill (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC))

If Wikipedia existed 100 years ago, I believe there would be several different aspects from the current version we have in today’s society. The biggest difference would be the platform. For example, Wikipedia would most likely be on a paper layout. 100 years ago the paper was the most common platform to write on, so I feel contributors would access Wikipedia like a magazine type of platform. Also, a contributor could edit the magazine by writing on a piece and typing out the section and content and mail it back. The content its self would also change as well because 100 years ago the English language was different. In today’s society, there is a lot of slang and English words have changed because some words were refined. For example, the word younker (younger) has been removed from the dictionary. I believe most of the information back 100 years ago would mainly involve farming, medical, and industrial. The reason why I choose these are that 100 years there was no social media and huge culture environments.

I agree with this. There was slang 100 years ago, but it was so regional that they couldn't, and still don't, mix well. Take Yank(ee)

British and Australian slang for an American vs American slang for someone from the North (usually specific to the New England area). I do not think Wikipedia would have actually been possible due to just the differences in regional tongues, let alone the different languages, each with their own dialects.Namir Riptide (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Original Talk Page

Hay y'all, I added a overall title and headings for each of our discussion questions. Are you all good with using them to keep our discussion cleaner looking, grouped by topic, and easier to follow? (Dmcgonagill (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC))