 |
| Figure 1. Proximal diabetic neuropathy wikipedia page stub - before editing From C. Holte (personal collection. March 21, 2012) |
Working on a Wikipedia article was a new and challenging experience. Wikipedia has a formatting code that I was unfamiliar with and had to look up in order to do the assignment. Making and editing the Wikipedia page on proximal diabetic neuropathy provided me with the opportunity to put to use the new skills I've been learning in class. I found and used images that were in the Wiki Creative Commons, and had a copyright that allowed them to be shared and re-used. I referenced the information and facts I found about proximal diabetic neuropathy using the APA formatting style and I was able to use RefWorks, the program we just learned how to navigate, to do this. One thing I soon discovered, when editing, was the vast quantity of information regarding how to write and edit Wikipedia articles on the Wikipedia website itself! This made it easy and convenient to find information. Wikipedia allows anyone to edit and article. Therefore, when I saw something on another article I wanted to include in mine, like an image or caption box, I was able to just look at the formatting codes used in that article and then apply them to mine. This enabled me to add several images as well as a classification box to my article, increasing the quality of information I could provide.
 |
| Figure 2. Proximal diabetic neuropathy wikipedia page - after editing From C. Holte (personal collection. March 21, 2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximal_diabetic_neuropathy |
Wikipedia is referred to as a, "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". This quote is found on the Wikipedia website information page. I think this feature can be both positive and negative aspects. On one hand this means that someone who does not know what they're talking about can post incorrect, inaccurate information. People editing articles may vandalise pages or write biased opinions as if they are fact. People doing research could mistakenly take everything in the articles to be true and end up with incorrect information, but unaware of it. However, Wikipedia has many positive aspects as well. It allowed a mere undergrad student like me to gain experience researching, editing and writing a professional, scientific page. I was exposed to different formatting techniques and different research methods. While Wikipedia may not be counted in many academic institutions it does function well as a starting base for anyone doing research on nearly any subject. Even if people can not reference my Wikipedia article they can go to the references I provided and got my information from, and use them in their academic documents and papers.
My fellow classmate, Nicole Briggs, mentions in her blog some of the systems Wikipedia has in place to prevent and solve the issue of article reliability. She mentions that Wikipedia has a system where registered users are allowed to modify, delete or correct articles and multiple authors must approve the page before it is posted. This helps corrects the problem of one author posting biased beliefs or incorrect information. Like myself, Nicole recognises that anyone being able to edit and write Wikipedia articles could create issues with reliability and verifiability. However Wikipedia has checks and systems in place for preventing page vandalism. Wikipedia is increasingly growing, expanding and changing. With the growth of the article database I believe there will also be increased knowledge in the general public of the pros and cons of obtaining information from Wikipedia and increased effort by authors and editors to ensure the information they are posting is accurate.
References
Briggs, N. (2012, March 21). The wonderful world of wikipedia. Retrieved March
21, 2012 from http://ales204n-briggs.blogspot.ca/
Wikipedia. (2012, March). Wikipedia: about. Retrieved March 21, 2012 from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Editing_Wikipedia_pages
You share a lot of the same opinions I do on Wikipedia! I agree it is a great source to find background information on a topic you may not be knowledgeable about. Some information may not be correct and you need to make sure you continue your research outside Wikipedia.
ReplyDeleteNicole
I too found the coding at first a bit challenging to figure out. But soon it was quite simple to use. In regards to anyone editing information, I agree that you must be careful in not believing everything you read. I had an experience with one of the editors of Wikipedia that approves the articles. I added information to the stub on the Health Check program. The article already contained an image of the logo from the previous editor, so I did not add/delete or alter it in anyway. After I finished updating the stub, only about 2 hours later, I received a message to my account that I must delete the picture because I did not have permission to use it. I immediately deleted it off the stub, but at the same time I was slightly upset I got in trouble for the picture when I had nothing to do with it. Good news is there are editors watching changes 24/7 but bad news is sometimes the wrong people get in trouble!
ReplyDelete