This weeks Wikipedia assignment expanded my knowledge to about 50x greater than it was before. I hadn't had much experience with Wikipedia apart from looking up random tidbits such as if the word "
slurpee" is trademarked by 7-11 - which in fact it is...according to Wikipedia. When it came to student assignments, I have always veered away from it altogether. This being due to the fact almost every professor at the University of Alberta says "Wikipedia is not a credible source". This can seem at times frustrating, maybe even unfair as a student when your up late into the night before a big paper is due, scrambling to finish and the only source that seems to be giving you the answers you need is Wikipedia. It is so easy to be tempted to use it, but there is always that voice in the back of your head reminding you no means no.
Now learning this week about the "other side" of Wikipedia, I can understand more clearly where professors are coming from. I now understand just how EASY it is to edit an article or stub on Wikipedia. You do not even need a log-in identification to do so. A person could change a few words and completely change the truth or facts about a subject. Consequently as a result, people all around the world will now obtain false knowledge about a subject they were clueless about before and now "think" they have the truth. Having the ability to change an article so easily and quickly is also a positive asset. If a new discovery occurs or a world-changing event occurs, it almost immediately appears on Wikipedia. In many cases it develops from a stub to an article within a matter of days. As someone becomes interested in the matter they do not need to wait a whole entire year for the next set of encyclopedias to be published to access the information or the references. When it comes to viewpoints on issues, I believe there is enough people editing these articles that all viewpoints are taken into consideration.
I learnt this week about "good articles" on Wikipedia. Shockingly only about 0.40% of all Wikipedia articles have this prestigous status associated with them. If interested, they can be found following this link:
Wikipedia: Good Articles. To be classified as a good article, the article must be well-written, factually accurate & verifiable, focus on the topic, neutral viewpoint, stable, and illustrated by images. In depth coverage of these points can be found following this link:
Wikipedia: Good Article Criteria. While reading about how to create a "good article", when a good article becomes a "featured article" it becomes one of the most outstanding articles currently on Wikipedia. Only 0.06% of all articles become featured articles! Knowing this know, when looking up information on Wikipedia I know what articles would be appropriate to start my researching from because the "good articles" will have excellent references I track back too. Like myself, a fellow student found Wikipedia beneficial. Check out her perspective in her blog the
Life of Linds.
The stub I chose to work on was on the Health Check program, developed by the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. I found a lot of information about the program on their website that surprisingly was not on Wikipedia. I updated the information that was currently present and added much more information, including links and references. When I first started updating the article and editing the previous work, I felt guilt and as if I was doing something wrong! I was changing information that someone else had posted to the world! But MC made a good point and said it was for the good of everybody. I was sure to reference anything I changed so the editor before me knows the correct information is now available and will not change it back...hopefully. I was surprised to receive a message halfway through my editing from an editor on Wikipedia that informed me the picture (posted by the previous editor of the page) did not comply to copyright standards and must be taken down, or cited appropriately. It slightly scared me so I took the picture down right away as I did not want to get in trouble with them or have my account flagged. Overall I believe I made a positive, factual contribution to the users of Wikipedia. To see the before and after of the stub, I have posted pictures below:
