User:77lemonpie/sandbox
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Birds L01/sandbox
Janet
This is a user sandbox of 77lemonpie. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section. |
Group Evaluation
Article Used: 77lemonpie (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
We noticed on the Lamprey page that there are many sources that the link does not work, specifically in the list of species section Brownkr (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Group Discussion In our group (Kelly, Janet, and Cyah) we discussed what we thought content gaps are, how to identify them, and possible remedies. We believe content gaps in wikipedia is when the information a user is looking for cannot be found, there is misinformation, or there are holes in the information. To identify content gaps we thought to look for biased information, limited to no sources, contradicting information on the topic, and limited information in general. Reasons content gaps may arise could be due to the lack of time an editor had to work on the page, editors are unaware how to use wikipedia, or the lack of research on the given topic. Remedies to limit content gaps could be having more editors, making sure scholarly sources are used, asking for help if needed, and doing thorough research on a topic. Does it matter who writes on Wikipedia? We don't think it matters who writes and edits for wikipedia, as long as they have a neutral stance, include scholarly sources, and are thorough with their work. What does it mean to be "unbiased"? The information presented is based on facts, scholarly research, and personal opinions are not included. Brownkr (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Individual Evaluation On the classification section of the Lamprey page there are some pieces of information that need cited sources to check if the writing is correct. For example, the first paragraph giving the whole overview of the taxonomy of lampreys is thorough but without a source it can't be verified and it's not properly credited if the writer used a source and not their own knowledge. This also occurs in the third paragraph, the debate about naming the taxa. There isn't a source attached that verifies this historical information that's relevant to the development of its classification, making the information unreliable. 77lemonpie (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
——————————————————————