Monday, October 3, 2016

Welcome back!


Now is when we make try and make some sense out of the crazy semester. Please do not worry, we can handle it together. But is essential that you and I are in class and working. I will be filling out the additional details over the next few days, but I wanted you to have the basic dates. Please notice the additional dates indicated by an asterix*.

10/4  Online: We do not meet as a class. A Wikipedia and Research discussion will be posted here.
10/11 Working with stubs
10/18 Proposal of Major Contribution
10/25 Interactions on Wikipedia
11/1 Research and Writing
11/3  Research and Writing
11/8 Mid-term Reflection Essay.  Yes, Thursday is a Tuesday part II. We meet twice in a week.
11/15  Research and Writing
11/22  Submissions and Publication
11/29  Submissions and Publication
12/6 Final Reflectiven Essay
12/13 and 12/14 Conferences 9-5 all day

ON GRADES. Your grades to date will be posted on Blackboard. There was some trouble with the shell for the course. I will have individual conferences with any students who are concerned about their grades once they are posted. 

32 comments:

  1. 1. What is your opinion about Wikipedia now? Has it changed since the beginning of class? Better? Worse? (You can be honest).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My opinion about Wikipedia has changed for the better I thought Wikipedia was an unreliable source of information and wow was I wrong. I would have never thought that many different types of research goes into every article that is posted let alone the degree of education that every editor and contributor has. I am sorry for being ignorant.

      Delete
    2. Yes my opinion has changed, at first i thought it was a place where anyone can just edit an article and put what they want. now i know that he articles get looked over by other users to make sure everything is correct and valid.

      Delete
    3. Yes my opinion has changed for the worse because I was always informed to never depend on Wikipedia, and now that I know anyone can put whatever they want on it, I feel that it can be unreliable because anything can be posted and that worries me.

      Delete
    4. My opinion on Wikipedia has changed because like most people , I was told the website can not be trusted. But after it was confirmed that not everyone can make permanent changes on the website I feel more secure

      Delete
    5. My opinion on Wikipedia has stayed the same. Though they have restrictions to what you can publish, I feel that it is still unreliable. From high school , I was taught to never depend or do research on Wikipedia and that has not changed nor will it ever. People can post and edit anything.

      Delete
    6. My opinion on Wikipedia now has changed because I was always told never to relay on the website or use it as a source. I'm looking forward to learning a lot more on why Wikipedia is actually reliable in our class.

      Delete
    7. No it really hasn't my opinion on it is the same.

      Delete
    8. My opinion about Wikipedia has stayed the same to be honest, i been a fan of wiki since grade school and continue to use it .

      Delete
    9. my opinion about Wikipedia has changed a lot since the beginning of the class.I believed that it was just a site where peoples could write a bunch of lies and just make make up stories .i did not know that almost every that is published is controlled by were serious editors that control everything. yes my opinion has changed positively.

      Delete
    10. My current opinion on Wikipedia was that it was just an amateur search engine that people shouldn't use as source material, as was always advised by my teachers. It definitely has changed a lot for the fact that there is a literal army of people fact checking every article on Wikipedia to make sure it is up to date and correct.

      Delete
  2. 2. As of now, do you think Wikipedia is a valid source of information? Give examples from at least one article (any subject) to support your position.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As of now I do believe that Wikipedia is a valid source of information. As for the Justin Beiber Wikipedia page all sources have been validated and cited. Furthermore Ashlea Thompson from Queens can not add on the Wikipedia page for Mr. Beiber that she is dating and engaged to the singer. Sorry Ashlea.

      Delete
    2. After going over one of the most current world events where voters in Colombia narrowly rejected a peace agreement with FARC leftist guerrillas on Wikipedia I looked into the references and some of the references do not all seem to be from scholarly sources but most do. For example, "FARC have 'drug trafficking networks' in Brazil – Colombia news". Colombia Reports. 19 May 2010. Retrieved 17 October 2011 did not seem like a scholarly source to me.

      Delete
    3. Yes i think Wikipedia is a valid source of information because from doing the tutorial i'm aware now that not only do the articles get looked over by other user but, users work together to make sure everything is correct. i watch basketball so i went over to the basketball wikipedia page and i can see things are correct cause of my prior knowledge of the sport and because of the links on the page.

      Delete
    4. I can say it is to an extend a valid source, because in the article relating to LaSiMa Bamako Sign Language in West Africa, it does show valid sites and references towards the language and supported other things said on that particular endangered sign language, however, that is one source of thousands.

      Delete
    5. As of right now I think you can find good information on Wikipedia. I searched Laguardia community college and it said "Laguardia student body is made out of people from 160 different countries. Which I believe is accurate.

      Delete
    6. To a certain degree Wikipedia has resourceful information. Articles about celebrities are lengthy and provides facts about their childhood and careers. For example ,singer's Aaliyah wiki shares where her parents got her name from. However some sources are not accurate and trustworthy like People Magazine or any other gossip magazine.

      Delete
    7. Yes i find Wikipedia to be valid as I looked up the article Death of a salesman, I found the information to be reliable.

      Delete
    8. I do think it is a valid source of information because of the numerous amount of people reviews the works worked on.

      Delete
    9. yes! Wikipedia is a valid source of information. I wanted to travel for Egypt in December for the first time and i went on Wikipedia to read about an article about Egypt, its population , its security and its currency . It was really interesting because i learned a lot about it. i also believe that sometimes , the information given on Wikipedia are not totally valid.

      Delete
    10. I can most definitely say that Wikipedia is a reliable source, for the numerous times I went behind my teacher's back and used Wikipedia as a reference (just to go down to the actual reference stub and use one of those as my source)

      Delete
  3. Wikipedia is much more than just the article on the page. There are discussions and disagreements and resolutions. Pick ONE article on any subject that interests you and check the talk page. What sort of information do you find there? What do the interested parties "talk" about?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The talk page is used for editing and requesting edits that others deem as errors. While trying to answer this question, I looked up "clown" on the Wikipedia website and found many different discussions in the "talk" portion. There were many requests to edit a term that was not transcribed correctly. Such as "Shamen" should have been " Shaman" this edit was indeed found to be incorrect and changed to the correct term.

      Delete
    2. The article I chose was of "The Colombian Peace Process" and when I checked the talk page there were no particular parties stating their opinions. Its simply stated when the article was featured on the Wikipedia main page and its ratings.

      Delete
    3. On the Basketball talk page the information i find is about changes/corrections that need to be made. some users were talking about expanding the women section of the article.

      Delete
    4. On the American Sign Language talk page, a lot was based on the grammar and history of American Sign Land involving the Deaf Community (of course), also back and forth decisions and terms that may be within the Deaf Community or not.

      Delete
    5. On Aaliyah's talk page there were constant edits and people requesting edits. There were discussions on whether some information was opinionated and or false.

      Delete
    6. Looking at the Poland article on Wikipedia (since I recently went there), I saw that the talk page had very few opinionated back and forth posts. Most was just updating information to make sure it was accurate to today's standards, and some were just suggestions on what to add and coding advice.

      Delete
    7. Looking at the Poland article on Wikipedia (since I recently went there), I saw that the talk page had very few opinionated back and forth posts. Most was just updating information to make sure it was accurate to today's standards, and some were just suggestions on what to add and coding advice.

      Delete
  4. My opinion about Wikipedia has changed for the better since the beginning of class. Although I still have much to learn about this innovative website I can definitely see the validity of its information based on its peer reviewed references. I believe that if the current college educational system would take more time to look at this websites benefits, we as college students would be encouraged to us Wikipedia as a primary source of research.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The topic i choose was the NBA salary cap, i was curious to see which star salary differentiate from the superstar and all stars. When i checked the talk page it was blank.

    ReplyDelete