The first time i put up this wiki post, it was requested for speedy deletion. 3mins. after this request, another person from the community declined the speedy and claimed that it has sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Someone added a notability tag to the article and i made changes to it by adding references and expanded it by adding an explanation of the rhyme. A while later the community talked to me about fixing the links to disambiguation pages using AWB. Two minor edits and a section edit was made to my page by the community: 1) robot-assisted fix links to dismbiguation page French, 2) fixing links to disambiguation pages using AWB (the "user stamp" was deleted), and 3) section edit to the references section. I added another background section but that got deleted because someone claimed that it was not relevant to the post. So far, it looks very much like the original post because my newer revisions didn't last on the post other than the three minor edits that have been made by the community.
In doing this wikipedia project I learned how fascinating it can be for a community to come together through a single search engine. It's amazing how quickly edits are made and people flag posts. I find it interesting how there are certain criterias that wiki people go by, but then from seeing the notability flag on my own page I discoverd that everyone has their own point of view with what should and can be posted. For example, one person flagged my page for speedy deletion but then someone else stood up for the post saying that there is sufficient information.
Overall, I feel like wikipedia cannot be a reliable source because there are so many different views and you can never really know which is right or wrong (unless you research the sources for yourself). Before this project, I felt that wikipedia was reliable and I took everything at face value; I figured everything on the page must be correct and reliable to reference. Wikipedia is easily accessible and obtains so much information--it's really neat. Yet, after doing this project myself, I now realize that there can be amateurs like myself who are creating new pages and such with very basic knowledge. Unless you really know what you're doing, how do you know who's ideas can be trusted and who's cannot? I now understand why professors are not in favor of using Wikipedia as a source for writing a research paper.
No comments:
Post a Comment