2201 "How a Ragtag band created Wikipedia"

Response to Video:


The first thing I learned was that Wikipedia is managed by volunteers. I find this to be amazing that such a huge site is managed this way. The next thing that I learned was how quickly they fix vandalism on the site. He even points to were reporters have said they vandalized it and were amazed at how quickly it was fixed. The last thing I learned was that only about 18% of the edits done to the website are done by anonymous users. I thought that this number would be a lot higher. When he said that everyone on Earth should have access to all human knowledge I totally agreed with this statement. Another thing I agreed with was when he was talking about truth. Like he was saying your truth is not going to be my truth. With that being said I have to disagree with him when he is trying to say Wikipedia is neutral. No matter how hard you try when people are writing about something there will be biased opinions.

Response to "Wikipedia Pretty Accurate but Hard to Read":


I was surprised by the information in this article. The reason I was surprised is I have never found Wikipedia hard to read compared to scholastic Journals.

Response to "4 Ways to Use Wikipedia Never Cite It":


To be honest I have never used Wikipedia to as a source for any research paper. The only time I even look at it is for information like what is the most venomous snake in the world.

Wikipedia Worksheet:


The article I chose was on Ronceverte W.V.

Wikipedia Reliability Worksheet

Article title:

Answer the following questions to see how reliable a Wikipedia article is.

1. Start with the main page. Does it have any cleanup banners that have been placed there to indicate problems with the article? (A complete list is available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/
   Cleanup.)

Any one of the following cleanup banners means the article is an unreliable source:

This article or section has multiple issues.	N
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.	N
The neutrality of this article is disputed.	N
The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.	N
This needs copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling.	N
This may contain material not appropriate for an encyclopedia.	N
This article only describes one highly specialized aspect of its associated subject.	N
This article requires authentication or verification by an expert.	N
This article or section needs to be updated.	N
This article may not provide balanced geographical coverage on a region.	N
This is missing citations or needs footnotes.	N
This article does not cite any references or sources.	N

2. Read through the article and see if it meets the following requirements:

Is it written in a clear and organized way?	Yes
Is the tone neutral (not taking sides)?	Yes
Are all important facts referenced (you're told where they come from)?	Yes
Does the information provided seem complete or does it look like there are gaps (or just one side of the story)?	complete

3. Scroll down to the article's References and open them in new windows or tabs. Do they seem like reliable sources? (For help in determining the general reliability of a source, check out the Knowing What's What and What's Note: The 5 Ws (and 1 "H") of Cyberspace handout.)
   
   Reliable references: Yes
   
   
   
   Possibly unreliable references:
   
   
   
   Definitely unreliable references:
   
   
   
    

4. Click on the Discussion tab. How is the article rated on the Rating Scale(Stub, Start, C, B, GA, A, FA)? What issues around the article are being discussed? Do any of them make you doubt the article's reliability?

This article has not received a rating on the rating scale.

---

---

---

5. Based on the above questions, give the article an overall ranking of Reliable, Partially Reliable or Unreliable.

• You may use a Reliable article as a source (but remember that even if a Wikipedia article is reliable, it should never be your only source on a topic!)
• You may use a Partially Reliable article as a starting point for your research, and may use some 
  of its references as sources, but do not us it as a source.
• You should not use an Unreliable article as a source or a starting point. Research the same topic in a different encyclopedia.

How did you rank this article (Reliable, Partially Reliable or Unreliable)? Give at least three reasons to support 
your answer.

I rank this article as being reliable. The first reason I ranked this article as being reliable is because of the references. The next reason is because when I looked at the editing history the only time anyone edited this article was to add more information about Ronceverte and not to fix any problems. The last reason I rated this article as being reliable is because I am from Ronceverte so I feel I know a good bit about this town and all the information in this article is what I have known to be true.

---