My Thoughts on Comments

Wikipedia - Discussion on Reliability and Falsehood

On a discussion thread for an article called "Can We Trust Wikipedia On Controversial Scientific Topics?" there were over 45 comments arguing about controversial topics on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia itself.

Credible comment.
Included with Jonathan Wallace's comment is the previous comment, to contextualize his response.

• Jonathan Wallace seems to express a fear, namely a fear over what user "rickflick" proposed as a solution for Wikipedia's disputed reliability as a source. Rickflick posed a question for a solution to combating counterproductive edits made on Wikipedia pages about controversial topics. However, Wallace voiced an apparent apprehension over assigning experts to monitor edits to those pages for "balance" because balance may be arbitrary, and experts may not see it how others would. Wallace seems slightly afraid of the solution because he points out the flaws and potential downfalls of that solution and poses a real-world example to illustrate his point. He also used the word "worrying" in direct response to Rickflick's idea, clearly indicating his stance on it.

• I believe Jonathan Wallace is pro-science based on his response, because he does not attack Rickflick's idea to have experts defend scientific and controversial topic pages on Wikipedia, and instead only focuses on the politics of "balance" in representation of groups of varying beliefs on such issues.

• Jonathan Wallace comes across as a credible commenter for a number of reasons. Firstly, his user account has a full name, and in contrast to the preceding "rickflick," Wallace seems to command a basic level of authority and credibility simply due to his having a real name. Additionally, Wallace does an excellent job of using politically correct terms in his example that justifies his stance against Rickflick's solution, such as "encyclopedia discussion on evolution" and "creationist arguments." Finally, he uses proper structure and punctuation for his comment, which allows him to convey his example in an understandable way.

Credible comment.

• If anything, JonLynnHarvey seems to be expressing a wish. While not a wish for something about Wikipedia to be different, I think he is expressing a desire for people speaking and commenting on the subject to be aware that Wikipedia is more reliable than it is made out to be. This desire is indicated by Harvey's listing of evidence of Wikipedia admins actively combating counterproductive editing on articles by prohibiting anonymous edits on certain pages, such as those about living persons, to avoid slander lawsuits.

• I think that JonLynnHarvey is a firm believer in Wikipedia's viability as a legitimate resource, in other words, he is pro-Wikipedia. He defends its legitimacy in the face of counterproductive and obscene edits by citing specific instances where admins for the site work against such edits, and then downplays the instances where admins are more relaxed by explaining the reasoning behind the less defensive stances on those pages.

• This commenter proved to have high credibility due to primarily to his ample amounts of evidence and reasoning. He cited living persons' biography pages, such as that of President Obama, as evidence that Wikipedia's staff effectively prevents counterproductive editing of entries. In addition, he cited an instance in 2011 involving a movie, "Anonymous," and how Wikipedia admins prevented edits to pages related to Shakespeare's work until facts could be verified. Finally, JonLynnHarvey's proper diction and organization of his post, including the somewhat unrelated bit about Scientology, lent credibility to his comment as a whole.

Comment that lacks credibility. And also is creepy.
Preceding comment included to provide context to Mr. Merveilleux's probing.

• Mr. Merveilleux is undoubtedly expressing a specific fantasy in his comment that responds - only tangentially - to Diana MacPherson's. That fantasy is for him to have a chance at learning more about MacPherson's appearance and dating availability. This is evidenced by his complete ignorance of the topic's subject and direct inquiry into MacPherson as an individual, including her romantic life.

• It's impossible to deduce Merveilleux's stance on the issue of Wikipedia's reliability as a source or destination for accurate information, as he does not indicate his beliefs on the topic in any way. However, it is reasonable to assume Merveilleux believes in internet dating and finding romantic adventures online.

• Merveilleux comes across as untrustworthy and lacking credibility because he completely ignores the topic of the comment thread and instead only asks MacPherson a direct, frank, and invasive personal question. In addition, Merveilleux uses an emote (the smiley face sticking its tongue out), which fails to lend him credibility as well.

Comment lacking credibility. Not in direct response to any other comment.

• This commenter, Robert Seidel, seems to have a wish to add to the discussion over Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy, and for others to acknowledge and become aware of instances where Wikipedia has been mistaken or overly decisive in the face of controversy. This is evidenced by Seidel's inclusion of a specific time when Wikipedia possibly classified a building in Vienna incorrectly.

• I think it is fair to conclude that Seidel doesn't completely trust Wikipedia, and believes it is not infrequently mistaken in its statements made on entries across a variety of topics. As the article was about scientific topic pages on Wikipedia, the fact that Seidel brought a less science-related example forward may indicate that he believes Wikipedia's questionable accuracy is not limited to scientific controversies over theories or new developments with the world's environment.

• While Seidel's inclusion of an example with proper citation did lend him some credibility, he still seems lacking in credibility. His poor grammar, overuse of capital letters, and misspelling of words and improper use of tenses ("wether," "build") detracted from credibility. Additionally, his anecdote had no real argument or point to make; it was purely an anecdote about a time when he remembered a controversy involving Wikipedia, which lent him no credibility since it made him seems disorganized or lacking in understanding for relevant argument, 

Reflection

I learned from reading Nick's and Tobin's reviews of comments on Chinese-Japanese diplomacy over WWII and the University of Oklahoma's SAE fraternity chanting a racist song, respectively, was that one of the primary factors in a commenter's credibility is the relevance of their comment to the subject at hand. In Nick's analyses, credible commenters stayed focused on the political status of China-Japan relations today, while non-credible commenters had relatively unrelated comments about China's leaders. Similarly, Tobin's selected comments exhibited a similar quality, and as he pointed out, the credible comments stayed on-topic and refrained from attacking the students at Oklahoma and instead voiced their concerns over their actions, as opposed to how the comments lacking credibility just attacked "the conservatives."

Additionally, from reading those posts, I realized that most credible commenters have success in voicing their fears or hopes by refraining from personal attack and overall, just being civil about voicing their opinions. I have to say that I agree with how Nick and Tobin determined credibility of comments by primarily focusing on each's relevance. 

My Controversy

Wikipedia - A Controversy Over Controversy

While perusing the various controversial topics from this year on the web, my eye caught on a strange article. It wasn't the "Wikipedia" tag that grabbed my attention, but rather the glimpse the search gave me of a controversy over controversy itself.

URL for article here

This article spoke about Wikipedia's status as an academic source - whether or not it should be avoided and is a reliable, accurate website in regards to its entries. The article at Why Evolution Is True, a science news website, focused on the controversy over Wikipedia through a study on controversies on Wikipedia.com. While that may seem confusing, the author conveyed her argument well, as she cited a study conducted by an Adam Wilson and Gene Likens that monitored less controversial topics' entries on Wikipedia to much more controversial topics' pages (namely, global warming, acid rain, and evolution). Compared to the study's "control" topics such as heliocentrism and general relativity, the Wikipedia pages for the "controversial" topics had drastically more edits and views per day, some of which included non-scientific statements and obscenities. I personally found this article interesting because it not only provided interesting facts about Wikipedia, which I frequent very often, but also because it justified both sides of argument over Wikipedia. The article defended Wikipedia being used as a source by drawing attention to the facts that most pages aren't edited much and remain accurate by dedicated users, while more controversial issues that may be viewed differently by different groups of people are often the centers of obscene edits and arguments. The article, for me, put Wikipedia's usage in a different light that doesn't approach either extreme of the debate over the site itself.

Calendar Reflection

Free Time *

I admit, I was a bit apprehensive when I was tasked to compile a weekly calendar that charts my hours at school and at home. While I like to think I have good time management, structured organizing of my time can make me feel restricted and pressed for time. But, after it all, I think my week is actually looking pretty good.

Cholet, Dafne. "Calendar" 20 January 2011 via flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) License.

In examining my completed Weekly Calendar Sheet, I saw that I am generally very busy on Fridays and Saturdays. However, that is balanced out by my entirely free Sunday, so my ability to complete coursework over the weekends should remain intact as it has in my academic career.

Interestingly, though, I noticed an opportunity in my Monday-Thursday schedule. My classes worked out in such a way this semester that I have large gaps between lectures or between a lecture and being able to head home (I carpool).

I labeled this opportunity "Free Time *." In my spreadsheet, this meant that I had open time slots while on campus for a substantial amount of hours every week. In translation, this meant that if I can reliably use my down-time on campus productively, I will have plenty of time to care of coursework before the deadlines even get close. Combine that with my late-starting classes every other school day, and I think I'll have more than enough time to complete work for my six classes and still have room to breathe.

Reflection on Other Posts

In reading summaries and thoughts from Brandon and Trey on their own schedules, I found that my own schedule is somewhat unique because my classes are spaced out in the day which creates large gaps of time that I spend on campus. As a result, since now I know the value of having these down-times on campus in the context of a busy schedule, I am going to strive to use those spaces of time productively to complete coursework throughout the week so I can attain gradual progress through the work for all my classes. In doing this, I hope to preserve the free time I have at home for recreational activities, and to maintain my Friday and Saturday schedules in which I typically am out all afternoon and night and not able to work last-minute at deadlines during the weekend.

My Writing Process

Inside the Mind of A Pseudo-Procrastinating Partial-Planner

The following body details, in a Q&A-style format, my responses to several questions about my habits and preferences of writing method. I will answer questions regarding how I define my habits as a writer in relation to four archetypes (see Student's Guide pages 38-9) and how I believe I can overcome the shortcomings of my personal writing method in addition to further improving upon the strengths of my process.

DirkvdM. "Canopy Walk" 7 August 2006 via DirkvdM/Photo-sales wikipedia page.
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) License.

• "What type(s) of writer do you consider yourself to be?"

• I would classify myself as a mix between a "Heavy Planner" and a "Procrastinator."   The description of the Heavy Planner that mentioned the writer's preference for extensive thinking in everyday contexts before taking ideas to paper matched me very well. I typically like to know ahead of time what I will be writing, and then continue through day(s) with a part of my mind playing with the idea of my writing. In fact, I often find myself inspired by random moments of conversation or sights which I plan to later use as creative fuel for my writing. I even keep the best thoughts from such moments preserved in notes in my phone, so I can have them ready when I finally sit down to write. However, as a result of my relaxed planning method, I often end up waiting too long before actually writing my ideas into organized text, which definitely labels me as a Procrastinator.

• "Does your writing process include several of the above approaches? If so, which ones?"

• Yes. Similarly to the description of Heavy Planners, I often will think about my writing across extended periods of time while I'm doing other, non-writing activities. I do this to allow myself to find inspiration in the everyday routines of my life, such as conversation or walks around campus or drives home. Additionally, I procrastinate (as is common for Procrastinators) because I am often reluctant to finally sit down and write, since I always hope for more and more ideas for my writing before I have to sit down and consolidate my thoughts.

• "Does your writing process seem to be successful? What are the strengths and weaknesses of your approach?"

• I do think my writing process is successful for my typical writing purposes. It allows me time to really think-out what I want to say and include in my writing. Without my process, I would fear that I would lack a substantial amount of ideas or central thoughts to write from. I firmly believe that the primary strength of my writing method is that I allow myself time to become inspired and excited (if not a little nervous as well) to write. However, the clear weakness of my approach is that I often lack solid progress and work until the final moments of my writing when I piece all of my thoughts together.

• "Do you think it might be beneficial for you to try a different approach? Why or why not?"

• In all honesty, I do. While it might pain me to admit it, I am often worried by the lack of sustained, solid progress yielded by my method. While I believe being able to think and develop my ideas thoroughly before I write is invaluable, I do think that I could try a more structured, evenly productive method of writing such as that of "Sequential Composers." The only risk I would run with such a method is that I may become worried that any writing I produce would be too set in stone, and would not lend itself to changes in central theme or idea.

Reflection on Other Posts

After reading both Jayni's and Brian's posts on their writing processes, I was genuinely intrigued by how they both approached writing with an emphasis on heavy revision. The primary reason why this was so fascinating to me was because I myself try to avoid the need to make multiple drafts and am not great with self-revision, and thus I respect both of their skills for self-revision. Although there were some differences in the writing processes I read about, such as an emphasis on pre-write planning as opposed to no planning, I definitely believe that I could take a page from other writers and try to draft more to refine my writing.

I also found it very interesting to read about how different writers mentally prepare themselves before beginning to write, but as I believe we each have our own ways of doing so, I think I will remain with my method of seeking inspiration in everyday contexts long before I begin writing - it's my style.