Wikipedia Follow Up

Two days after I edited my the Wikipedia of my high school, Our Lady of Mercy, the information I added was taken out. I added funny things and memories of my school, probably irrelevant to the other students that attend the school. I used this assignment by more of a means to entertain myself then I did to add useful universal information to the site. I am surprised that it took them as long as it did to edit my entries, however the information I added wasn't that outlandish and I don't think many people go to the Wikipedia of an all girls Catholic high school in Upstate, NY. I think that would be a little weirder if someone edited it really quickly. This was a fun class assignment that allowed me to experiment on Wikipedia to find out how attentive those Wikipedia people are about the editing of pages.

Wikipedia Update

I tried to update a Wikipedia page about a mall near my home in NJ, Garden State Plaza. I tried to include updated information regarding what the mall has to offer today since the post had been lacking current information. So, based on my knowledge I wrote about new stores that were being created, how stores were expanding, how the new movie theater has changed the mall's traffic, and about different services offered like personal shoppers and professional makeovers. Since I did not look up any of this information, I did not cite it. Bad move. It got taken down and I have to put it back up with citations from various websites to prove what I write is factually correct. Although I feel kind of like an idiot for not citing it, I think it is really good that it got taken down for lack of support. This shows that the editors take their jobs seriously and want to make sure that when people use information from Wikipedia, they are getting factually correct information that can be found elsewhere on the web.

Wikipedia relfection

When the Knicks secured a spot in this year's NBA playoffs, I felt the need to give their Wikipedia entry a little update. Unfortunately, Wikipedia didn't like what I had to say. I updated the information about their current season and added that they were scheduled to play the Boston Celtics in the first round of the playoffs.

It stayed up there for a while, but when I checked the next day, it was gone (but not forgotten). I think it's probably harder to make an edit on such a popular Wikipedia entry, than a less popular one. If I had made an edit about my high school or my hometown, I believe I would have had a lot more success.

Refreshing this WIkipedia Page

For the Wikipedia assignment, I edited my high school page, Saint Joseph Hill Academy in Staten Island, New York. After checking up on my new revisions, it is safe to say that nobody disagreed with what I had to change. The information seemed quite old considering it spoke about the new laptop program that was recently launched, yet it was in full force when I was a student at Hill. I was able to take part in this program so I added personal detail to this section of Technology. It seemed so easy to do, almost too easy. While I did leave links to the sources of my information, I feel like almost anyone can write whatever they please. I thought this was a great assignment overall though because it showed us that we can express our opinions as if they were facts to the public. It can be anonymous and people may take our words as true simply because they are written out in front of their face. People tend to be lazy and believe anything they hear, so I would not doubt that people take Wikipedia at full face value, while they probably should not.

Reflection On Becoming A Wikipedian

I've checked my high school's (Christian Brothers Academy) wikipedia page everyday since this assignment just to see if anyone noticed that I substituted "Track and Field" in for "Lacrosse" under the "Most Competitive Sports" portion of the opening paragraph. Thus far, nobody seems to have noticed (or cared for that matter, being that our lacrosse team is quite pathetic). In the assignment I added some tidbits in the main sidebar adding the school slogan and school founders. As I read through the page I saw how they barely even mentioned the Army JROTC program on its page. Now most people don't know that our JROTC program is within the top 10% of all programs in the United States, has been an integral part of CBA since its founding, and that it was possibly the most important part of my high school experience. Now I've known the school has not been exactly "hot" for the military program, but it has certainly straightened out its fair share of crooked teens over the years. So I put my little pitch in there for the JROTC program and that was that. This assignment showed me how simple it was to edit a page on wikipedia, thus giving me the title dubbed "Wikipedian," but also how key it could be to have someone to monitor the page for you. I could have wrote some pretty damaging things on their (without using vulgarity or causing any red flags), and it probably would take the administration a little while to notice. After thinking about this I searched my own name on Wikipedia just to check and see if there was a page for me and there wasn't. So now I'm debating on making one for myself (insert maniacal cackle here). All in all, I believe this was a very good assignment on teaching students how to make their voices hear in places other than blogs or other public forums and I enjoyed it a lot.

Editing Wikipedia Assignment

A week after my added post to the Wikipedia page of my hometown, the information I added is still there. I found this assignment to be difficult as well because most of the information about any given topic that I could think to write about was already on that Wikipedia page. I eventually found something to add and to my surprise it has been unedited. This actually makes me feel a little uneasy, now that I have experienced the ease of editing a Wikipedia page. I wonder if I had posted something incorrect if it would still be there or would it never be noticed, then leading on future readers. I still like Wikipedia and intend to keep using it, but I will probably be a little more in depth with my research if I am using it for a large project.

Reflection of Wikipedia Assignment

After class, I checked on my Wikipedia addition here and I was not surprised to find that no one changed or deleted it. As a matter of fact, I am the last person to make an edit to the page.
To be completely honest, I thought this was a very difficult assignment because in order to add a paragraph of information, you needed to know something about the subject. Not only that, but the article was most likely something extremely specific. For example, I thought of edited Fordham University's Wikipedia article, but I realized that I only know the broad topics that are already addressed on the article page. There are a few lines that I could edit, but that wasn't the assignment. I then tried to think of a band I listen to, but realized that everything I know about the band was already posted on Wikipedia. As soon as information is released about a particular person, place, or thing, someone has probably already posted it on Wikipedia. The only exception is if there is something specific to you that you may know, that others wouldn't know first.

Podcast

I have only listened to a few podcasts before reading Dr. Levinson’s chapter, but they seemed more appealing after the reading.  The first podcast I ever listened to was actually created by a co-worker.  The podcast contained his NFL playoff predictions, and was pretty entertaining.  The format of his podcast was similar to a radio show, but I was able to tune in whenever I wanted and even pause it.   Another great feature about podcasts is the ability to transfer them to your ipod, and listen to them on the go. 

            I can’t imagine podcasts entirely replacing radio, because people like to listen to live shows; but I believe they will increase in popularity.  Similar to the way some people became famous after being discovered on YouTube, I think certain people who frequently “podcast” could get discovered and get offered positions at radio stations.

According to the “podcast” Wikipedia entry, the first community podcast was hosted at Fordham University in 2005.  

Podcasts and School

Senior year of high school my history teacher tried something with our class that I had never experienced before. She would create podcasts outlining our homework chapters that went along with powerpoint slides. We would download them, listen to them, and have an easy way of accessing, organizing, and referring to our notes. I still have these podcasts on my computer and they range from WWI Battles to WWII Phases to Marxism and Socialist Movements. I am not the biggest history fan, but these podcasts made learning more interesting because we didn't have to sit and read a textbook for hours outlining each and every chapter. Furthermore, since it was an AP class, she decided that we were all going to break into groups and make our own podcasts covering a variety of topics which would help the class study for the exam. So, my partner and I created our own podcast discussing WWII, identifying important people, places, terms, etc. She then wanted to take it a step further and include a Wikipedia page that would mirror each podcast so if students preferred they could read instead of listen, however we did not end up doing that. Overall, I felt that this was a new way to teach a class and get them involved in the text without flipping through a textbook every day. We got to create something new and use modern technology to make history more appealing and exciting. (Sorry to anyone who thoroughly enjoys the subject, it's just not my favorite.)


Strange, but funny:

Wikipedia. How the Tables Have Turned

After making an edit in the Hula Hoop section, it became clear to me how drastically the roles of publishers of information and consumers of information have changed. New, New Media allows the consumer of information to become the publisher as well. And it is easy! You do not need to know how to decipher web-coding in order to edit an entry on Wikipedia, you only need to be able to follow simple instructions and be able to type. The fact that any one can edit information on Wikipedia has been a source of controversy for the site since it's creation. How can we deem information as reliable if we do not know the qualifications of the person providing the information? I believe that you should often be wary and double check your facts, but I believe Wikipedia is a useful source because while anyone can provide information, there are constantly people reading and editing information, removing things that are untrue and adding things that are important. This site could potentially grow to be one of the most useful site's on the Internet because rather than gathering information from many different sources and people, you can get the information from those different sources all on one page, boiled down to the best most agreed upon information available around the world. One thing I did wonder about is what happens if there is a adamant disagreement about a piece of information. If two people go back and forth deleting each others information and re-posting their own, is there some sort of mediating body within Wikipedia that can settle these sorts of disputes or is the content of the site completely controlled by its users?

Wikipedia: Use with caution

Earlier on, I wrote about my disappointment with Digg as far as its inability to provide me with the information I needed when it came to soccer.

Wikipedia is completely different. It's tough to argue that Wikipedia is possibly the best resource for soccer information providing player and team histories, biographies, statistics, and facts. Early on in its life, the information was dodgy as best and rival fans usually have their most hated player die of some odd disease. There wasn't much moderation or control back then, but the website has improved exponentially and is now a pretty reliable resource for all my soccer information needs. The best thing about it is that almost all the information is cited and I can easily find the sources of the statements. When I want to find something out about a certain player, "player name wiki" is automatically the entry on my search query.

I guess translating to school, the subject of Wikipedia is a bit more controversial. Like the entries below, I have had professors who have banned us from using Wikipedia as a resource while others frown upon it. I still find it as an important resource as it provides a jumping off point to what I am researching as it aggregates multitudes of sources into several paragraphs. The footnotes allow me to go straight to the unabridged resource.

A moment that stands out is my freshman Philosophy of Human Nature class wherein one of the first statements my professor said was that he will know if we use Wikipedia and Spark Notes and that he wouldn't hesitate to fail us. While I tried to grind out the readings of Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas, the mix of old timey language, complex vocabulary, and my general laziness and resistance to accept that the class is part of my core as a business student, just made their words go over my head. I decided to use Spark Notes and Wikipedia to aid my reading and they definitely made the experience more tolerable. The midterm came, went, and was returned - 98/100. Interesting stuff... So the unreliable Wikipedia would lead to a failing grade? I don't think so.

Unfortunately, the strong outing in my midterm made me cocky and I began to rely solely on Wikipedia and Spark Notes to satisfy all my philosophical needs. The second test came, went, and returned - 84/100. While it is still perfectly respectable and I was still in the higher end of the class curve, it wasn't the 98 I was expecting. I went back to reading the book and using Wiki to supplement everything I didn't understand. I finished the class with a solid B+. Given my lack of interest in the class, I'll take that as a win.

So I guess my point is that Wikipedia isn't the knowledge killer that some professors see it as. It is a very useful resource that anyone can use to complement whatever they are reading. While you can't take what it says as gospel, those in the upper echelons of academia shouldn't be too quick to scoff at it.

I Read That Right After I Wrote That

I can say in all confidence that I will owe both my diploma and my bachelors degree to three distinct technological advancements and of course, my undying work ethic.

A quick list - Wikipedia, Easybib, Blackberrys

I find it incredibly annoying, unrealistic and stubborn when professors refuse to allow students to use Wikipedia. For one, they have now way of preventing me from doing this. I have other issues with citations and the absence of originality, which may be more accurately referred to as authenticity, but that is another discussion entirely. Perhaps not entirely so. Is everything on Wikipedia the distinct property of one person? Is anything? There is a wealth of information and knowledge in the world and Wikpedia has been referred to by Jimmy Wales as the "sum" of it. It seems to me that human knowledge is a continually growing item which will never be counted in its entirety.

In light of Wikipedias ability to highlight and link to other relevant information that can strengthen a paper or an argument, I must say that access to Wikipedia is not only a privilege, but a right of the sensible and modern student. If you want to live in a fantasy world where your pupils make daily trips to the library and read, then do it. I'll be elsewhere.

wikipedia

Since it's beginning, Wikipedia has had its share of controversy. From accusations of false information, to biased editing by big businesses and even Wikepedia themselves, to the continuing debate among educators and students on Wikipedia's relevance and validity as a legitimate source for information. This last issue is the one that I would like to focus on as it affects me the most. The main problem is that the majority of teachers don't recognize Wikipedia as a strong enough source for students to reference in their school work. The fact of the matter, however, is that the majority of students would classify it as one of the main sites they access first in order to get information on a topic. Wikipedia's limitless list of topics and adjoining paragraphs about each topic offer students a one-stop place to get the basic information on just about any subject quickly. Because of it's supreme convenience, many students would prefer to be able to use it as a source in their papers.

Although some teachers are slowly relaxing their strict restrictions on using Wikipedia as a source, this trend has not yet gained much prominence (at least not at Fordham). I think that over time, students will be allowed to cite Wikipedia as a source as there are many changes occurring within the corporation. Executives at Wikipedia have altered the site in such a way that the information is checked regularly for bias and falsity. Because of this Wikipedia is more accurate than ever. It would make life so much easier if Wikipedia was considered a valid academic source by educators.

click here to see Wikipedia's page on itself.

Wikipedia

While containing a plethora of information, Wikipedia is still given negative spotlight by professors. However, I find Wikipedia most useful in answering my day-to-day inquiries. How do pineapples grow? Well, I can type “pineapple wiki” into my search bar and my question will be answered in about 5 seconds. Useful, quick, and simple are adjectives that describe this data monster. Although, we cannot always count on Wikipedia for resourceful information, when double-checked the facts presented on the site are almost always accurate.

Aside from “wikipedia-ing” common day curiosities, I use Wikipedia as a platform for academics. When my teacher introduces a new subject such as “Nicomachean Ethics”, obviously in the core class Philosophical Ethics, I can use Wikipedia to find out more about the subject. I can even access Wikipedia from my IPhone, yes I did buy the .99 cent app., making information even more simple to retrieve. Even though the facts presented may sometimes be incorrect, they are usually retracted quite quickly. Thanks to Wikipedia, I am a more informed being with the capability to have my questions answered in the palm of my hands.

Wikipedia

Whenever you find yourself in need of random information, or need information about a paper you're writing, where do you turn? Many people would simply say "Wiki it," or "Wikipedia it." Well what is Wikipedia? Wikipedia is a revolutionary online database that was founded in 2001. Wikipedia is a collection of 'pages' or 'articles' that are titled and relate to specific topics; it's the world's largest online encyclopedia. Wikipedia is supported by a not-for-profit organization called the Wikimedia Foundation based in San Francisco. Co founder Larry Sanger coined the name "wikipedia" by fusing together the Hawaiian word for quick, "wiki," and the end of the word encyclopedia. This gives us the title of "quick encyclopedia," or Wikipedia as we know it today. Currently Wikipedia has over 3.5 million articles in English and over 18 million articles in other foreign languages as well. The main idea that separated Wikipedia from other online encyclopedias, was that it allowed the reader to contribute. If you have an account on Wikipedia, you can contribute to any of the articles. Despite the fact that this has led to pranks and other mischief, it revolutionized the idea of encyclopedias by allowing not just a select number of scholars or experts to contribute, but allowing anyone to contribute their thoughts. Another aspect of Wikipedia that makes it different from other online encyclopedias, is that because of the allowance of so many users to post and edit Wikipedia, articles appear on events that are current and up to date as if it were almost a newspaper article. This allows users a giant wealth of current event knowledge and material as well.

Wikipedia revolutionized the idea of encyclopedias and how they are published and distributed to users worldwide. Not only does it allow multitudes of people to add whatever material they deem pertinent, it allows very up to date articles that allow us to see our world as its changing around us.

Wiki Culture

I definitely think that Wikipedia lives up to its name. The prefix "wiki" means quick in Hawaiian. For me at least, wikipedia certainly serves as a quick reference source. I have found myself "wikipedia-ing" topics in the middle of conversations in order to look up something that has been questioned, or to learn more about what is being discussed in a quick and discreet manner. Now that wikipedia can be accessed from smart phones and there are even wikipedia apps, it makes the process even quicker. Even before that though, wikipedia typically comes up as one of the first results on Google when you search for nearly anything. I think people like that it is so convenient and easy to maneuver.

In terms of school and major research papers, I will typically use wikipedia as a general starting point. From there, I will research more about the specific facts I find on wikipedia to certify that they are correct and to also elaborate on them. Although I have been told by many teachers that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, I think that for the most part, the editors monitor the pages very well. A friend one time posted something on the Fordham sports page that was blatantly wrong just to see how long it would take for it to be removed. The erroneous fact was gone within 5 minutes of it being posted. I understand that if I am writing a paper I could happen to catch the page within the 5 minutes that it takes the editors to get to it, but I think the chances of this happening are probably slim.

My mom owns a complete encyclopedia set that consists of 29 books. We keep them on a shelf in our basement considering that they are now nearly obsolete. I remember using those books for projects and papers up until about 7th or 8th grade. After that I do not recall searching through them for facts, instead I probably "wikipedia-ed" the stuff I needed to know.

Editing of Wikipedia Articles

In Paul Levinson's book New New Media, he brings up the excellent point of editing Wikipedia articles. I believe that when he wrote this book, Wikipedia did not force users to create an account in order to edit the articles. Now, however, an account on Wikipedia is necessary in order to make edits. Before, administrators tracked users via their IP address, a set of numbers that are assigned to every computer in different locations, as a way of identifying with each computer user. Levinson says that once an account has been created, Wikipedia uses that to track users. But, neither of these methods are a good way to keep track of vandals. Anyone could create a different account name and easily have access. Or, especially those living on a college campus, can just go to another location (or building) and log in from there because their IP address is a different number (yet, this could prevent the person living in that location not to be able to edit if the editor gets banned.) As of right now, I don't know what could be a less foolproof method. Maybe tracking both the account and the IP address since that could give a lot of information (especially if they consistently have the same IP address.)


On another note, I did not know that editors/readers are allowed to view every single edit that was made to a Wikipedia article. I think that's a very useful tool because it allows readers and other editors to see what other people are looking for in terms of adding content (or even deleting it.) Great! Now, I have another way to procrastinate from doing my homework.

Wikimedia

If you don't know what Wikipedia is by now, let me explain. It is a lazy man's life saver. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that is open to the world. Anyone can view it and anyone can get an account to become an editorThe great thing about Wikipedia is that nothing on the website is necessarily permanent. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the people and by the the people. Personally, I love Wikipedia. I use all the time whether it's to check a quick fact for school, or to look up something that has been on my mind.

Wikipedia makes life too easy if you ask me. I mean if you type in a word to google chances are one of the first results to that search is a Wikipedia definition. To some Wikipedia is not reliable, and to that I have to disagree. For the most part, Wikipedia has editors who look through the changes made to the website and catch any purposeful mistakes made by tricksters. Wikipedia has never let me down and just like Colin Powell I think that world should rely on it more. All print media is inferior to online databases such as Wikipedia because Wikipedia has the ability to change and stay up to date on current events. Wikipedia is beautiful site that is very useful for my personal life.

Oh the Wonders of Wikipedia

Ever since high school, I have been told not to rely on Wikipedia because it is not a trusty source. You are not sure who posts this information and they may not be an expert on the subject. While this is true, I find myself using Wikipedia frequently throughout my day. It is so easy and so quick. You can literally Wikipedia anything! No matter what it is, there will be some sort of information on the topic chosen and this is why I love Wikipedia! I do not trust it for research projects but it is a great place to begin learning about a topic. Conveniently, I was recently assigned my term paper for my Psychology class which is all about Wikipedia. The assignment requires us to find a topic and after reading up on it using this site, to go further using scholarly articles to “fix” it and make corrections. It seems that my professor does not trust in the site and wants us to “correct” it. We will then be able to publish what we complete, educating others properly in the process.

To Cite or Not To Cite?

I feel like there is a constant battle when writing research based papers about whether or not Wikipedia is an acceptable source. Some teachers and schools support it, while others are very against it. Still, others advise you to use it as a general reference to find more reliable articles that might be cited in the Wikipedia post. But, if you are allowed to use it to get a list of articles referenced in it, why can't you just reference Wikipedia as a source since it ultimately contains the same information?

I understand that some of the information might not be reliable but, at least from my experience, most of the information you get from Wikipedia is general information readily available on other websites, and thus easy to fact check if necessary. I also feel that Wikipedia is typically used as a starting off point if you have no idea what your topic is about. So if you are just using it for general background information referenced later in your paper, why can't you use it? I feel as though students should be able to use is as a source as long as the information cited is supported by later facts. Obviously if the student pulls a fact from Wikipedia that has no logical backing and therefore contradicted later in the paper, the student deserves to get points deducted for not checking his or her facts. However, if you pull a date from Wikipedia that is supported on other websites and follows along the timeline you are referencing then you should be able to use it. I am not advising people to use Wikipedia as the go-to cite for major, extremely important, specific details. However, as an outline or general reference guide, I believe it is a fine starting point.

Did you know that there are few female editors on Wikipedia and they are trying to attract new Wikipedians?

Wikipedia editors met in Berlin