This week we are exploring why Wikipedia cannot be relied on as an academic resource. To cite directly from the wikipedia research page:
"It is in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:10_things_you_did_not_know_about_Wikipedia)
We also viewed some background information relating to Wikipedia and their guidelines for useful articles;
Background Information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_is_not_so_great
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox
Guidelines for Useful Articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Wikipedia_content_criteria
Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with external sources, and neutrally presented, with external sources cited.
The appropriate policies and guidelines for these are found at:
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not summarizes what Wikipedia is, and what it is not.
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Wikipedia's core approach, neutral unbiased article writing.
Wikipedia:No original research what is, and is not, valid information.
Wikipedia:Verifiability what counts as a verifiable source and how a source can be verified.
Wikipedia:Citing sources sources should be cited, and the manner of doing so.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style articles should follow this style guide
Once completing these tasks we selected two topics in fields we are knowledgable and examine the accuracy and construction of the related Wikipedia articles;
Jeans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeans
* Is this an accurate article? The article is accurate enough in mentioning Levi Strauss and the key role of the Levis Company in the evolution of jeans as we know them today. Unfortunately I don’t have as much knowledge on the history of jeans as I would like, however I do know a great deal about the different fits and styles. Wikipedia is a global resource, however, and the various names given to styles may differ slightly depending on whereabouts in the world the article originated. I was impressed that they mentioned the rise of the jeans towards the end of the article, noting that jeans can sit at various heights on the waist; ranging from high-waited to super low-rise.
* Does it cover all the basic facts that you'd need to understand this topic?
The majority of the links in relation to the range of jean fits either do not exist or lead the user to an unrelated page, which leave a big hole in the information presented on this potentially useful page. While I was hoping to see many diagrams, images and clear explanations of each unique style and how they vary to similar fits, I was grateful when the few functional links actually led to the correct page!
Links to non-existent pages:
- Ankle jeans
- Boycut (or Boyfriend) jeans for women
- Loose Jeans
- Relaxed fit
- Slinkies (never heard of them…?)
Links to unrelated or incorrect pages:
- Baggy Jeans: Directs users back to the original Jeans page
(In other words it refreshes the page, taking users back to the top)
- Bootcut: Leads to the correct page, however the information is simply copied and pasted from the article on “Bell-Bottoms” and is therefore inaccurate. A brief section at the bottom of both pages describes flares AND bootcut but there is nothing in related to bootcut as a unique style.
- “Mom” Jeans: Links to an article about the television show Saturday Night Live…huh?
- Original Jeans: Leads to an article on “originality”
- Saggy Jeans: Link to “sagging” (as a fashion)
Links that WORK!
- Bell-Bottoms / Flares
- Carpenter Jeans (only small explanation with no images)
- Hip Huggers
- Low-Rise Jeans
- Overall
- Phat Pants
- Skinny Jeans
- Wide Leg Jeans
- Jorts (or as ordinary people would call them… Denim Shorts)
* Does this article follow the Wikipedia guidelines for useful articles?
Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with external sources, and neutrally presented with external sources cited.
I do feel that more facts need to be included on how the jeans fit and how each style varies… after all, is that not the main information people would be seeking? You do not need to know how the jeans were made when buying a pair or simply learning the terminology; it’s what the jeans are today that is important.
I get the impression that several of the linked pages discussing the jean fits are only a personal description provided by a user with no professional knowledge in the field or the use of external references. The articles on Low-rise Jeans, Hip-Huggers, and Bell-Bottoms (flares) are constructed in a professional manner with links (both within and outside of Wikipedia). Whereas with pages such as the Carpenter Jean, which I have never heard of but it sounds like a good idea, there are minimal links and no images or diagrams to reference; only a brief and basic description.
In conclusion, the article has a neutral nature on its side, however I feel its supposed facts are questionable and more external links are required to regain credibility.
* Is this article fair and balanced, or is it biased towards a particular side or argument?
There isn’t really an argument present in this topic for any bias to form around; however there may be discrepancies in the history of jeans which I’m not currently aware of.
This is where problems arise with Wikipedia; a lot of the time information could be incorrect, but how do we know any different? We use Wikipedia in search of knowledge, if we already knew the truth then we would not need to reference it. Although I work in the area of jeans, I don’t have the knowledge of jean history to criticise anything said in the related articles. Further research could be conducted to confirm the information put forward but due to time restrictions this activity will have to be saved until later.
2007 Rugby World Cup
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Rugby_World_Cup
* Is this an accurate article?I was at the 2007 World cup finals in Paris; Bronze Final and Grand Final matches so I got to experience the matches described in this article first-hand. Based on my knowledge of this field the article is accurate and also very informative.
* Does it cover all the basic facts that you'd need to understand this topic?
Not only did the accuracy impress me but there is exceptional detail in describing the teams, individual matches and final ladder positions.
* Does this article follow the Wikipedia guidelines for useful articles?
Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with external sources, and neutrally presented with external sources cited.
There are plentiful links to other Wikipedia articles and also external web resources – enhancing the credibility of the article itself. As previously concluded, the information presented is factual and thorough. Therefore the article does follow Wikipedia’s guidelines for useful articles.
* Is this article fair and balanced, or is it biased towards a particular side or argument?
No bias towards any particular World Cup team is present within the article.
No comments:
Post a Comment