Week Two: Wikipedia Analysis (Step Seven)

Step Seven:

How do think Wikipedia could be integrated into classroom activities?

 

I think Wikipedia could be used in the classroom to teach students how to be critical consumers of information, as well as contributors with their findings. Wikipedia gives them a global market of consumers and collaborators to work with as they develop research and explore validity to their findings.

 

What do you think about using Wikipedia as a source of information instead of textbooks?

           

I think Wikipedia could be a great source of information instead of textbooks; however, I still don’t believe that it can be citable information unless validity is proven, which is would case-by-case. I think that students would have to use the Web Evaluation Checklist to prove that the context is accurate. Wikipedia can be used to find citable resources, as well.

 

Has your opinion changed? How? Why?

            My opinion has changed since doing this assignment; I no longer believe that Wikipedia is a useless resource. However, I’m still not convinced that it could be used as a citable one. It is very well organized and structured and opens up a forum for communities to come and collaborate on information presented to the public. Before this project, I never thought about using Wikipedia as a way to integrate technology and motivate students to learn by sharing their contributions with world-wide peers.

Week Two: Wikipedia Analysis (Step Six)

Step Six:

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) and Enescot (talk) are heavily involved in editing the Wikipedia article on Global Warming. Click on their names to see their profiles. Then read their pages again.

How does this information make you feel about the credibility and validity of information on Wikipedia? Justify your stance using concrete examples.

 

I feel that after reading NewsAndEventsGuy’s page, I think he is very knowledgeable and tries to follow the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia and copyright policies. For example, in the section drought image NewsAndEventsGuy gets told that an image he used was not a public domain photo. He fixed the problem from what I can see and from the remaining conversation. Also, in terms of his knowledge. He is quick to come up with facts that back his edits.

Enescot seems like an enthusiast rather than an expert. In the section titled “citation procedure”, he wasn’t as on top of things as NewsAndEventsGuy. He lacked in his initiative to fix problems, especially in editing citation errors. He posted links with his comments on other Wikipedia pages, which did not work or sent the user to a different place than listed.

Due to these recent findings, I feel that Wikipedia has a good group of experts that peer-review everything that is written on its pages. Enescot was told about the mistakes he had made, as well as NewsAndEventsGuy. This makes me feel more secure in the credibility and validity of information on Wikipedia.

Week Two: Wikipedia Analysis (Step Five)

Step Five:

Below the FAQ section read the section titled Section on natural systems. This is where Wikipedia editors discuss edits and concerns about accuracy and neutrality with articles in Wikipedia.

What did you learn about issues related to global warming?

 

Global warming has effected temperature changes across the globe. For example, glaciers have been melting, which has caused the sea level to rise. It has affected the precipitation of snow in the arctic as well as rain in the tropics. Due to these changes, there is expected frequency and severity of extreme weather occurrences, such as heat waves.

 

How does reading this section influence you perception of Wikipedia as a resource for learning in school? Justify your stance using concrete examples.

 

            This section makes me feel more secure about using Wikipedia as a resource in school. However, students will have to do a lot of follow-up research to prove that the claims in the article is current and accurate. I still don’t believe it should be a citable resource. However, I definitely believe it is a good educational tool.

Week Two: Wikipedia Analysis (Step Four)

Step Four:

Scroll down to the frequently asked questions section. Choose one of the questions and read the answer. Verify the answer using another online source. Link me to the source and conduct a Website Evaluation of the online source.

 Question and Answer:

Q2: How can you say there's a consensus when someone has compiled a long list of "skeptical" scientists?

A2: Over the years, a number of lists of so-called "skeptical scientists" have been produced. Notable among these are the Oregon Petition (circa 1999-2001, and re-circulated in 2007) and James Inhofe's list (originally released in 2007, re-released in 2008 with additional names added). These petitions have proven to be riddled with flaws^[2] To wit:

• Many of the people listed aren't really scientists. For example, the definition of a "scientist" used in the Oregon Petition includes anyone who has a bachelor's degree – or anyone who claims to have a bachelor's degree, since there's no independent verification. Using this definition, approximately 25% of the US population is qualified to sign.
• Some of the people listed aren't even people. Included on these lists are hoaxes ("Dr. Geri Halliwell") and companies.
• Of those who have a scientific background most work in fields unrelated to climate, such as the chemistry of coal ashes^[3] or the interactions between quarks and gluons.

·  Those who are scientists are listed arbitrarily, and includes people who say they aren't skeptical of global warming. The Inhofe list was compiled by Inhofe staffer Marc Morano with no effort to contact the people listed. One of those on the list, George Waldenberger, even informed Inhofe's staff that he is not skeptical of the consensus on global warming. His request to have his name removed from the list was ignored.^[4] Similarly, Steve Rayner of Oxford University has asked for his name to be removed and calls his inclusion "quite outrageous".^[5] The Heartland Institute has stated that scientists who have told the Institute that it misrepresented their views on global warming "have no right – legally or ethically – to demand that their names be removed" from the Institute's list.

Supporting Resource: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/01/11/205326/science-lindzen-debunked-again-positive-negative-feedbacks-clouds-tropics/

Was the answer in Wikipedia accurate? Yes. A lot of titled skeptics’ information and articles have been debunked by other researchers.

How does this influence your perception of Wikipedia as a resource for learning in school? It has my vote. I think that this is a very good resource to use (with own student research on the validity of its contents) for students. I still don’t think it should be a citable resource; however, it is a good learning tool and resource.

 

Website Evaluation Checklist:

Name of page: Climate Progress

Address/URL: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/01/11/205326/science-lindzen-debunked-again-positive-negative-feedbacks-clouds-tropics/

Date Accessed: May 31, 2013

How did you find the page? 

     Google Search

DOMAIN

 

What is the domain of the page?

            .org

 

Do you feel that the domain type helps add to or lessen the page’s credibility?

 

                I believe that if the domain type is a .org, .edu, or .gov it helps add to the page’s credibility. This is because those are educational/informational websites. However, there is no such thing as an error free website. At least, that’s what I’m finding out through this module. My domain type that is listed above does not make me feel secure in the accuracy of its information; however, the website is a list of published books, so therefore I believe that my book is accurate in its claims.

 

AUTHOR/AUTHORITY

Is the author of the page identified?

Yes.

 

      Is the author of the page an individual?

Joe Romm is author of a blog on this website.

  

If the author is an individual:

      Is the author clearly affiliated with a corporation, institution, organization or group?

           

            No, except for the website that he blogged on, which is Climate Progress on thinkprogress.org.

 

      If so, does this affiliation lend credibility to the author?

           

            I think it lends some credibility, because not everyone can post on this website. However, this still leaves room for assessing the credibility of the information presented.

 

      Are the author’s educational, occupational or other credentials identified?

           

            Yes. He is a published author of a book: Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga.

 

      Is the author a professional in the field or a layperson interested in the subject?

 

            He is a professional in the field and works for thinkprogress.org as an editor.

 

      Does the author present any other evidence that supports his/her ability to accurately present the information that he/she is presenting?

 

            Columnist Tom Friedman calls us "the indispensable blog" and Time magazine named us one of the 25 "Best Blogs of 2010."

 

      Does the author display any obvious bias (religious, political, commercial or other)?

 

            No

 

      Is the author the original creator of the information presented?

 

            Yes

 

      If not, does the author acknowledge the sources of the information he/she is presenting?

 

                                Yes

 

AUTHOR/AUTHORITY, cont.

 

      Does the author provide his/her contact information (usually an e-mail address)?

 

            No, but people can comment on the blog and send in tips on the latest news.

 

      In conclusion, do you feel that the author is qualified to present the information found on his/her web page?

                  I feel that he is very knowledgeable in the area of climate and global warming; however, I’m not sure I would label him as an expert in the field. This article was written to disprove the claims of a “skeptical scientist” against global warming. He listed many resources and related links in his article.

 

INTENT

 

Is the purpose of the page clearly stated?

Yes

 

What is or appears to be the purpose of the page?

           

Inform readers of the current issues and the disproven and error-ridden claims of an MIT scientist.

 

Does the page contain advertisements? 

          Yes

 

Do the ads distract from the page’s content, affect the page’s reliability, or appear to be the main focus of the page? 

          No

Might they be necessary to support the organization responsible for the page?

                 Yes, but some of the advertisements are related links on the Web, which is helpful when researching the topic.

 

INTENDED AUDIENCE

 

Who appears to be the intended audience for this information/page?

            Researchers and enthusiasts

 

Does the level or complexity of information provided, the vocabulary used, and the overall tone of the information/page match your needs?

 

                Overall, it does; however, there are some word choices that seem less than scholarly, such as “crap”.

 

CURRENTNESS

 When was the information on the page created or last updated?

             January 11, 2010

 

Are the dates of articles, news stories, newsletters, reports and other publications given?

           On some of the cited material; however, for the majority of the article dates are not given.

 

Is the page properly maintained or does it have broken links, outdated events calendars or other signs of neglect?

           It is properly maintained.

 

RELIABILITY

 

Is the content peer-reviewed, authenticated by experts, or subject to some sort of editorial scrutiny?

           There are several people who have commented on the article, and some gave links to support their comments.

 

Does the page display any awards given by reliable sources, or link to favorable site reviews by reliable sources?

           Yes. http://thinkprogress.org/introduction-to-climate-progress-and-its-top-posts/ They have this link for newcomers to the site.

 

Considering your answers to the previous questions, other observations you’ve made, and your overall sense of the page, how reliable does this source seem?

 

            This source seems reliable in its intent to share that some of the skeptical scientists who don’t believe global warming is increased by humans have proven errors in their research and thinking. I would say that this text would be a good resource to prove that everything needs to be checked for validity; however, I don’t believe this source is a good resource for supporting evidence of how global warming is effected by humans.

 

CONCLUSIONS

Do you feel that this source is appropriate for your current assignment or information need?

     

          Yes

 Would you recommend this source to a friend doing similar research?

            Yes

What reservations, if any, do you have about the source?

                 This page proves that some scientists are not reliable in their information, even published authors; however, I have reservations using this in support of the concept of man-made global warming conditions.

Week Two: Wikipedia Analysis (Step Three)

Step Three:

What does it mean that this article and its editors are subject to General Sanctions?

 

            There are consequences for editors who are placing disruptive edits, such as administrative restrictions. Moreover, people editing articles that are on probation may be banned from editing related articles and/or project pages. Under this link, it states the current sanctions to certain pages, as well as the sanctions that have been superseded by the Arbitration Committee.

Week Two: Wikipedia Analysis (Step Two)

Step Two:

Continue reading the Wikipedia article and chose a claim to verify (i.e since 1979, land temperatures have increased about twice as fast as ocean temperatures). Using Google find two websites. One that supports the claim and one that disputes it. Post the information from the check list in a blog posting along with links to the sites.

 

·         Claim:

·         Naturally occurring amounts of greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F). Without the earth's atmosphere the temperature across almost the entire surface of the earth would be below freezing.

·         Support:

·         “Scientists know that the “greenhouse effect” is a reality: without the naturally occurring heat-trapping gases in the earth’s atmosphere, the planet would be about 30ᵒ C cooler on average—an ice ball rather than a life-support system” (Speth, Looking into the Abyss, 2008, p. 21).

·         Web Page Evaluation Checklist

·         Information

1.       Name of page: Google Books
Address/URL: http://books.google.com/books?id=BaL1ADsc7f4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=J.G+Speth+The+Bridge+at+the+Edge+of+the+World+pdf&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KcyoUbvADMKZiQLy2IDoCg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=J.G%20Speth%20The%20Bridge%20at%20the%20Edge%20of%20the%20World%20pdf&f=false
Date Accessed: May 31, 2013
How did you find the page?
Google Search Engine
The book was my textbook in an undergraduate class at Fairmont State University

·         DOMAIN

1.       What is the domain of the page?

§   .com

2.       Do you feel that the domain type helps add to or lessen the page’s credibility?

§  I believe that if the domain type is a .org, .edu, or .gov it helps add to the page’s credibility. This is because those are educational/informational websites. However, there is no such thing as an error free website. At least, that’s what I’m finding out through this module. My domain type that is listed above does not make me feel secure in the accuracy of its information; however, the website is a list of published books, so therefore I believe that my book is accurate in its claims.

·         AUTHOR/AUTHORITY

1.       Is the author of the page identified?

§  Yes

2.       If no individual author is identified, is the corporation, institution, organization or group responsible for the web site clearly identified?

§  Google

3.       If the author is a corporation/institution/organization or other group:

§  Does the organization have a reputation for credibility?

·         Yes; however, I don’t believe that Google is responsible for the credibility of the information and texts placed on its site.

§  Does the organization explain its purpose, mission, goals, or guiding principles?

·         No

§  Does the organization provide the names of its officers, editors, staff or other major participants?

·         No

§  Does the organization provide contact information (phone, address, or at least an e-mail address)?

·         No

§  Does the organization appear to filter the information appearing under its name? 

·         It filters certain things that would might induce a lawsuit, but none in regards to the listed link. 

§  Does the organization display any obvious signs of bias?

·         No

§  In conclusion, do you think that this organization is qualified to present the information found on its web page?

·         I don’t think that Google is qualified to present the information; however, I believe the author of the information in the book is qualified.

·         AUTHOR/AUTHORITY, cont.

1.       Does the author provide his/her contact information (usually an e-mail address)?

§  No

2.       In conclusion, do you feel that the author is qualified to present the information found on his/her web page?

§  I don’t feel that Google is qualified to present the information; however, I believe that the author of the text is highly qualified. He has won many awards for his research.

·         INTENT

1.       Is the purpose of the page clearly stated?

§  Yes.

2.       What is or appears to be the purpose of the page?

§  Inform the reader about the book and the author. As well as, inform the reader about global warming.

§  Persuade you to buy/download the book

3.       Does the page contain advertisements? 

§  No

4.       Do the ads distract from the page’s content, affect the page’s reliability, or appear to be the main focus of the page? 

§  No

5.       Might they be necessary to support the organization responsible for the page?

§  Google does a lot of advertising outside of the webpage I visited, and those advertisements support the continuation of Google.

·         INTENDED AUDIENCE

1.       Who appears to be the intended audience for this information/page?

§  Environmental Researchers/Activists

§  Shoppers

2.       Does the level or complexity of information provided, the vocabulary used, and the overall tone of the information/page match your needs?

§  Yes.

·         CURRENTNESS

1.       When was the information on the page created or last updated?

§  2008

2.       Are the dates of articles, news stories, newsletters, reports and other publications given?

§  Yes, within the book’s citations.

3.       Is the page properly maintained or does it have broken links, outdated events calendars or other signs of neglect?

§  Yes, it is properly maintained.

·         NOTES:  Website about the author and the book is: http://www.thebridgeattheedgeoftheworld.com/  

·         RELIABILITY

1.       Is the content peer-reviewed, authenticated by experts, or subject to some sort of editorial scrutiny?

§  It has several accolades from various political and media people in fields such as science, environmental, political, academic, and the like. It has been peer-reviewed and is a published work.

2.       Does the page display any awards given by reliable sources, or link to favorable site reviews by reliable sources?

§  No

3.       Considering your answers to the previous questions, other observations you’ve made, and your overall sense of the page, how reliable does this source seem?

§  The book seems very reliable with all the awards and accolades given to it and the author.

·         CONCLUSIONS

1.       Do you feel that this source is appropriate for your current assignment or information need?

§  Yes.

2.       Would you recommend this source to a friend doing similar research?

§  Yes.

3.       What reservations, if any, do you have about the source?

§  That some of the information may be out of date.

 

Speth, J. G. (2008). Looking into the Abyss. Retrieved May 31, 2013, from Google: http://books.google.com/books?id=BaL1ADsc7f4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=J.G+Speth+The+Bridge+at+the+Edge+of+the+World+pdf&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KcyoUbvADMKZiQLy2IDoCg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=J.G%20Speth%20The%20Bridge%20at%20the%20Edge%20of%20the%20World%20pdf&f

 

·         Dispute:

·         “The effect of having no infra-red active gases in the atmosphere is then a surface temperature which is 30.76 K higher than the observed average surface temperature of 287.65 K! In other words, the so-called greenhouse gases have a very strong cooling effect upon the Earth’s surface temperature, which is of nearly the same strength as the commonly claimed warming effect on the Earth system as a whole is” (Anderson, 2013).

·         Web Page Evaluation

1.      Information

§  Name of page: An Objectivist Individualist
Address/URL: http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-earth-surface-temperature-without.html
Date Accessed: May 30, 2013
How did you find the page?
Google Search

2.      DOMAIN

§  What is the domain of the page?

·          .com

§  Do you feel that the domain type helps add to or lessen the page’s credibility?

·         I believe that if the domain type is a .org, .edu, or .gov it helps add to the page’s credibility. This is because those are educational/informational websites. However, there is no such thing as an error free website. At least, that’s what I’m finding out through this module. My domain type that is listed above does not make me feel secure in the accuracy of its information; however, the website is a list of published books, so therefore I believe that my book is accurate in its claims.

3.      AUTHOR/AUTHORITY

§  Is the author of the page identified? Is the author of the page an individual?

·         Charles R. Anderson as the author of his own blog

§  If the author is an individual: Is the author clearly affiliated with a corporation, institution, organization or group?

·         No

§  Are the author’s educational, occupational or other credentials identified?

·         Yes, but vaguely. It states that he is a materials physicist and owner of a materials characterization laboratory.

§  Is the author a professional in the field or a layperson interested in the subject?

·         The webpage leads me to believe that Mr. Anderson is a layperson interested in the subject.

§  Does the author present any other evidence that supports his/her ability to accurately present the information that he/she is presenting?

·         The only two resources that the information lists is a picture of greenhouse gases from NASA’s website and the Unsettled Earth Energy Budget article.

§  Does the author display any obvious bias (religious, political, commercial or other)?

·         I believe that the author could be biased in his attempt to go against the crowd and be an “individualist”.

§  Is the author the original creator of the information presented?

·         Yes

4.      AUTHOR/AUTHORITY, cont.

§  Does the author provide his/her contact information (usually an e-mail address)?

·         No, but you are able to comment on the information presented on the blog.

§  In conclusion, do you feel that the author is qualified to present the information found on his/her web page?

·         Based on what I’ve read, I don’t believe that the author is qualified to present the information found on his web page. However, I did find on another link that he has a Ph.D. in physics, which makes me feel a little better; but the lack of other resources/research makes it look unqualified.

5.      INTENT

§  Is the purpose of the page clearly stated?

·         Yes. “The critical battle of our day is the conflict between the individual and the state. We must be ever vigilant and constant defenders of the equal sovereign rights of the individual to life, liberty, property, and the personal pursuit of happiness.”

§  What is or appears to be the purpose of the page?

·         To promote “individualistic” views and prove that the common “misperception” of the  effects of the greenhouse gases on the earth’s surface.

§  Does the page contain advertisements? 

·         Yes

§  Do the ads distract from the page’s content, affect the page’s reliability, or appear to be the main focus of the page? 

·         The advertisements do distract from the page’s content, because they take up almost half of the screen.

§  Might they be necessary to support the organization responsible for the page?

·         Blogger does have ads to support the website; however, I don’t believe that they have to be that big. I think that, with the combination of the layout and design of the page, it is very hard to concentrate on the information presented.

6.      INTENDED AUDIENCE

§  Who appears to be the intended audience for this information/page?

·         “My posts are aimed at thinking, intelligent individuals, whose comments are very welcome.”

§  Does the level or complexity of information provided, the vocabulary used, and the overall tone of the information/page match your needs?

·         No. I don’t think he writes very well. The text is hard to understand, because I believe he structures sentences and uses words above his ability.

7.      CURRENTNESS

§  When was the information on the page created or last updated?

·         April 10, 2013

§  Are the dates of articles, news stories, newsletters, reports and other publications given?

·         No

§  Is the page properly maintained or does it have broken links, outdated events calendars or other signs of neglect?

·         All the links work, and it isn’t out-of-date.

8.      RELIABILITY

§  Is the content peer-reviewed, authenticated by experts, or subject to some sort of editorial scrutiny?

·         No, there aren’t any comments or proof of revision by experts or other professionals.

§  Does the page display any awards given by reliable sources, or link to favorable site reviews by reliable sources?

·         No

§  Considering your answers to the previous questions, other observations you’ve made, and your overall sense of the page, how reliable does this source seem?

·         This source does not seem reliable because of its lack of resources and research to back his claims. Any links to support his claims are other posts he has created.

9.      CONCLUSIONS

§  Do you feel that this source is appropriate for your current assignment or information need?

·         No

§  Would you recommend this source to a friend doing similar research?

·         No

§  What reservations, if any, do you have about the source?

 

 

·         Lack of validity in its claims

 

Anderson, C. R. (2013, April 10). An Objectivist Individualist. Retrieved May 30, 2013, from Blogger: http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-earth-surface-temperature-without.html