Discussion 2 Wikipedia

Does the Wikipedia article appear to be biased in any way or does it maintain neutrality?

Is it biased?

I believe so. In my years of research one was always a little biased toward their topic. I do believe it covered the facts, it did have descending opinions, although hard to find. They showed data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change where scientists and experts contribute to writing and reviewing reports—voluntarily, along with other international committees.

Controversy in Global Warming

There is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view, though a few organizations hold non-committal positions. Disputes over the key scientific facts of global warming are now more prevalent in the popular media than in the scientific literature, where such issues are treated as resolved, and more in the United States than globally. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy)

Step Two: Scientists for or against global warming:

Scientist against global warming

Name of page: Arguments against Global Warming

Address/URL: http://www.aproundtable.org/tps30info/globalwarmup.html

Date Accessed: 5/30/2013

How did you find the page? Google

DOMAIN

What is the domain of the page? Org.

Do you feel that the domain type helps add to or lessen the page’s credibility? I feel it adds

AUTHOR/AUTHORITY

Is the author of the page identified? No

This  is a corporation, institution responsible for the web site clearly identified? Yes: American Policy Roundtable

Does the organization have a reputation for credibility? This is the first I have read them

Does the organization explain its purpose, mission, goals, or guiding principles? Yes

Does the organization provide the names of its officers, editors, staff or other major participants? Yes

Does the organization provide contact information (phone, address, or at least an e-mail address)? Yes

Does the organization appear to filter the information appearing under its name? No

Does the organization display any obvious signs of bias? Yes against global warming

I was all for them until I read one of their mission points included ‘overcoming evil in society and promoting political alternatives to policy’’. This gave me pause.

In conclusion, do you think that this organization is qualified to present the information found on its web page? I feel anyone is qualified, it’s the public who determines what to read and believe.

INTENT

Is the purpose of the page clearly stated? Yes

What is or appears to be the purpose of the page?

·         Rekindle American Spirit

·         Build a networks of leaders, who will help others join in the adventure of responsible citizenship.

·         Overcome evil in civil society by promoting positive alternatives in public policy.

Does the page contain advertisements? Yes

 Do the ads distract from the page’s content, affect the page’s reliability, or appear to be the main focus of the page? Not really Might they be necessary to support the organization responsible for the page? They might if they want their opinions published

INTENDED AUDIENCE

Who appears to be the intended audience for this information/page? Every day Americans

Does the level or complexity of information provided, the vocabulary used, and the overall tone of the information/page match your needs? Yes

CURRENTNESS

When was the information on the page created or last updated?This particular article was written in 2007

Are the dates of articles, news stories, newsletters, reports and other publications given? It does highlight their resources , there are more updated articles

Is the page properly maintained or does it have broken links, outdated events calendars or other signs of neglect? Properly maintained

RELIABILITY

Is the content peer-reviewed, authenticated by experts, or subject to some sort of editorial scrutiny? It seems to be a public forum, however there is an editor and researchers on the staff.

Does the page display any awards given by reliable sources, or link to favorable site reviews by reliable sources? No

Considering your answers to the previous questions, other observations you’ve made, and your overall sense of the page, how reliable does this source seem? I feel it is reliable to those who believe this political stance. I would do more research before believing all they say.

CONCLUSIONS

Do you feel that this source is appropriate for your current assignment or information need? Yes

Would you recommend this source to a friend doing similar research? Yes but not as the only source. This is just one opinion. More need to be investigated.

What reservations, if any, do you have about the source? I feel it has a significant political agenda to one side.

Scientists for global warming

Name of page: Scientists Agree Overwhelmingly on Global Warming. Why Doesn’t the Public Know That?

Address/URL: http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/scientists-agree-overwhelmingly-on-global-warming-why-doesnt-the-public-know-that/

Date Accessed: 5/30/2013

How did you find the page? Google search

DOMAIN

What is the domain of the page? .com

Do you feel that the domain type helps add to or lessen the page’s credibility? Not really

AUTHOR/AUTHORITY

Is the author of the page identified? Yes

Is the author of the page an individual? Yes Christopher Schuetze - contributor

Is the author clearly affiliated with a corporation, institution, organization or group? Yes writes for the Global NY Times

If so, does this affiliation lend credibility to the author? Yes

Are the author’s educational, occupational or other credentials identified? No

Is the author a professional in the field or a layperson interested in the subject? Seems to be well read in environmental areas

Does the author present any other evidence that supports his/her ability to accurately present the information that he/she is presenting? Not here

Does the author display any obvious bias (religious, political,commercial or other)? I think since he is a news organization contributor he has some bias toward his own work.

Is the author the original creator of the information presented? Yes

If not, does the author acknowledge the sources of the information he/she is presenting? He does acknowledge his sources.

AUTHOR/AUTHORITY, cont.

Does the author provide his/her contact information (usually an e-mail address)? I’m sure it’s there somewhere, however I had to subscribe to find more details.  

In conclusion, do you feel that the author is qualified to present the information found on his/her web page? At this point yes.

If the author is a corporation/institution/organization or other group:

Does the organization have a reputation for credibility? YES

Does the organization provide the names of its officers, editors, staff or other major participants? Yes

Does the organization provide contact information (phone,address, or at least an e-mail address)? Yes

Does the organization appear to filter the information appearing under its name? NO

Does the organization display any obvious signs of bias? No

In conclusion, do you think that this organization is qualified to present the information found on its web page? Yes

INTENT

Is the purpose of the page clearly stated? Yes

What is or appears to be the purpose of the page? That scientists overwhelming agree on global warming.

Does the page contain advertisements? Yes

Do the ads distract from the page’s content, affect the page’s reliability, or appear to be the main focus of the page? No

Might they be necessary to support the organization responsible for the page? I think Yes

INTENDED AUDIENCE

Who appears to be the intended audience for this information/page?

People of all ages who are interested in global warming.

Does the level or complexity of information provided, the vocabulary used, and the overall tone of the information/page match your needs? Yes

CURRENTNESS

When was the information on the page created or last updated? Created May 16th,2013

Are the dates of articles, news stories, newsletters, reports and other publications given?Yes

Is the page properly maintained or does it have broken links, outdated events calendars or other signs of neglect? Yes Properly maintained

RELIABILITY

Is the content peer-reviewed, authenticated by experts, or subject to some sort of editorial scrutiny? Yes

Does the page display any awards given by reliable sources, or link to favorable site reviews by reliable sources? Not for this particular page. But it’s the NY Times…

How reliable does this source seem? Reliable

CONCLUSIONS

Do you feel that this source is appropriate for your current assignment or information need? Yes

Would you recommend this source to a friend doing similar research? Yes, but not as the only source

What reservations, if any, do you have about the source? None

Step Three:

What does it mean that this article and its editors are subject to General Sanctions?

“Global warming is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so”( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_warming )

However, Wikipedia does have the right to impose general sanctions on all editors working in a particular area usually following a request for arbitration.

Usually at an administrators' noticeboard, the community may also impose general sanctions on all editors working in a particular area

Article probation  

Anyone editing an article on probation should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT.

Community article probation

Editors making disruptive edits may be subject to various administrative restrictions, depending on the terms of probation. This type of probation is similar to article probation, above, but is imposed by the community rather than by ArbCom.

Step Four:

Verify the answer using another online source http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm.

Q11: Are the IPCC reports prepared by biased UN scientists?

A11: The IPCC reports are not produced by "UN scientists". The IPCC does not employ the scientists who generate the reports, and has no control over them. The scientists are internationally recognized experts, most with a long history of successful research in the field. They are employed by a number of different organizations, including scientific research institutes, agencies like NASA and NOAA, and universities. They receive no extra pay for their participation in the IPCC process, which is considered a normal part of their academic duties.

Was the answer in Wikipedia accurate? Yes the answer was accurate.

Name of page: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Address/URL: http://www.ipcc.ch/

Date Accessed: 5/30/2013

How did you find the page? google search

DOMAIN

What is the domain of the page?.ch

Do you feel that the domain type helps add to or lessen the page’s credibility? Not sure never saw it before

AUTHOR/AUTHORITY

Is the author of the page identified? YES

Is the author of the page an individual? NO

If the author is an individual: There are more than 800 authors that contribute to this site.

Is the author clearly affiliated with a corporation, institution, organization or group? YES

If so, does this affiliation lend credibility to the author? Not really Are the author’s educational, occupational or other credentials identified? YES

Is the author a professional in the field or a layperson interested in the subject? A professional in their field.

Does the author present any other evidence that supports his/her ability to accurately present the information that he/she is presenting? YES

Does the author display any obvious bias (religious, political, commercial or other)? YES toward global warming

Is the author the original creator of the information presented? YES

If not, does the author acknowledge the sources of the information he/she is presenting? YES

AUTHOR/AUTHORITY, cont.

Does the author provide his/her contact information (usually an e-mail address)? No email, but the institution with which they are affiliated is posted.

In conclusion, do you feel that the author is qualified to present the information found on his/her web page? YES

If the author is a corporation/institution/organization or other group: Organiztion

Does the organization have a reputation for credibility?YES

Does the organization explain its purpose, mission, goals, or guiding principles? Yes when tabbed on Organization

Does the organization provide the names of its officers, editors, staff or other major participants? YES

Does the organization provide contact information (phone, address, or at least an e-mail address) ?YES

Does the organization appear to filter the information appearing under its name? NO

Does the organization display any obvious signs of bias? Yes toward global warming

In conclusion, do you think that this organization is qualified to present the information found on its web page? YES

INTENT

Is the purpose of the page clearly stated? YES,  The IPCC's work is guided by a set of principles and clear procedures for all the main activities of the organization. This page serves as a repository for all official procedural documents guiding IPCC activities.

What is or appears to be the purpose of the page? To inform the public regarding the scientific research applicable to global warming.

Does the page contain advertisements? NO

INTENDED AUDIENCE

Who appears to be the intended audience for this information/page?

All people interested in the research about global warming. Researchers environmentalists etc.

Does the level or complexity of information provided, the vocabulary used, and the overall tone of the information/page match your needs? YES

CURRENTNESS

When was the information on the page created or last updated? Updated daily

Are the dates of articles, news stories, newsletters, reports and other publications given? YES

Is the page properly maintained or does it have broken links, outdated events calendars or other signs of neglect? YEs it is proprerly maintained

RELIABILITY

Is the content peer-reviewed, authenticated by experts, or subject to some sort of editorial scrutiny?YES

Does the page display any awards given by reliable sources, or link to favorable site reviews by reliable sources?YES Nobel on the face page

Considering your answers to the previous questions, other observations you’ve made, and your overall sense of the page, how reliable does this source seem?Seems to be very reliable.

CONCLUSIONS

Do you feel that this source is appropriate for your current assignment or information need?YES

Would you recommend this source to a friend doing similar research?YES

What reservations, if any, do you have about the source?NONE

How does this influence your perception of Wikipedia as a resource for learning in school? I’m liking it a little more. Information is still overwhelming

Step Five:

What did you learn about issues related to global warming?

I learned that it is a hotly contested issue with way too much information to sift through. I was absolutely overwhelmed and spent hours reading and sifting through the material.

How does reading this section influence you perception of Wikipedia as a resource for learning in school?

I never doubted that Wikipedia would make an excellent resource in schools.

Justify your stance using concrete examples.

However, it took me a week just to read through all the information. In today’s instant society, students would never take that time. The first page was so full of data links, blue words, black words and graphs, that is was so easy to get sidetracked onto another section. When doing a topic so broad as global warming being able to identify the subchapters on the side was extremely helpful, but if you are not sure what you are looking for, you could be looking a long time.

Step Six:

How does this information make you feel about the credibility and validity of information on Wikipedia.

They really don’t give me any confidence about credibility and validity. Looks like a bunch of emails on different topics. Such as : This doesn’t involve global warming

“25-50-25

• 25% of people will be mad at you (or unteachable) no matter what you do, so don't waste your time trying to change them.

• 25% of people will be thrilled with you (or self-directed learners) so don't waste your time trying to change them.

• Just focus on the 50% where you can make a difference”

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NewsAndEventsGuy)

Step Seven:

How do think Wikipedia could be integrated into classroom activities?

The possibilities are as endless as the imagination allows. It could be incorporated into the curriculum in all aspects of education.

What do you think about using Wikipedia as a source of information instead of textbooks?

Textbooks are frequently outdated and edited to the publishers’ discretion and chosen at the school boards discretion.

Has your opinion changed?

I am waffling. There was so much information, I was totally overwhelmed. Why? This information changes daily. All students need access. If one student doesn’t have computer access, as is the case in many homes in WV , then how is this student to learn? The students must be started very early in their education, Kindergarten/pre-school.