Criterion E - Evaluation

Well, this project is done. Through out the project, I have worked with Jiri, one of my classmates which I have never worked with before. So it was a lot of experience working with him and I believe that our process went well with an outstanding product. Our finished Wikipedia group project does meet the three design specifications:
- It DOES contain information from reliable source. Specifically, the part which we have edited. The information was from CIA World Factbook.
- It IS edited properly. The font and context are just the same as the ones above and below and any other information format on it. The edition is true, none of those irresponsible actions/context was written.
- It IS cited properly. Properly meaning that the footnote was used as well as in the reference the link of where we got the information was written in there.

Criterion A

Well, as was asked in order to get the highest grade, I had to introduce the project as usual. I did introduce the project and how it is related with the chosen Areas of Interaction, and category of the Learner Profile. Then I was supposed to investigate about wiki pages, and answer questions like:

• What is a wiki?
• Why use them?
• Who creates them?
• Who edits them?
• Who is in charge of deciding what goes into an article and what gets removed from an article?

These types of questions were meant to get answers; which I did answer them. Although I did research quiet a lot, it was not that easy to answer every single question to the fullest. And I will admit that I write a lot. I am not really satisfied with the answers I have given. I could have done much better job if I put some more effort into it. It was me, who was in charge of everything. There was nothing from external atmosphere. So if I can redo this project, I would like to concentrate more on the investigating the wiki pages. Then as was mentioned above, we had to choose a partner, who we never worked with before. For me, my partner was Jiri. We were asked to create a method of finding inaccuracies on Wikipedia. We did create a brief method; but while we were working on further stages of this unit, I realised that we were not reasonable enough about our method. Through out the project we were seeking for new solutions to find inaccuracies on Wikipedia pages. That took quiet a lot of time. When we always think about Wikipages, we do believe that they are not reliable; however it REALLY was hard to find errors. So that part of making the method did not really succeed, I would like to think wisely and again spend some time actually to come up with reasonable evidence to back up the method.

Other than that we had to create a test our method by finding an inaccuracy on Wikipedia. Becuase Jiri was working ahead of me, he had already written one. So since we didnt want to waste and I did agree with the method, we just posted the one he had. It might have been a mistake for me. Because it was supposed to be a group work no matter how much I did support the ideas he had already written. So in the future, I would like to come with OUR ideas together and add original thoughts. So I did lack of enthusiasm to work hard on this project.

Though there was a stage throughout Investigation where we actually had fun. We created our own wiki pages. For example, I worked with Sonya to create a wiki page and we posted our previous unit's work/speech on it. So did everybody else in our class, and each of us had to visit each others' blogs and either make changes to it or comment on it. It was fun but a mess at the same time. People ended up editing pages all the time and made the content of the text totally different. For instance,

I like you into I hate you. and ETC>

Criterion B

For Criterion B, it was not a lot of work. We were to find an error or errors in any Wikipedia page then edit it converting them into the right information. Post evidence of my work in MLA citation. I was asked to post the incorrect information; but I did not. It is because I did not read the all the specifications before I actually adjust the page. Other than that I did all was asked. I did show the correct version though, and included a little paragraph telling the estimated version of the incorrect information. Other than that I did create the design specifications.

Criterion D

The create was smooth as Design maybe even easier than that. We had to read and sign the responsibility agreement. And then use the given username and password to make the changes. So Jiri and I made the corrections using the given username and included the sources. There was not a lot to work and there is no improvement needed, I believe.

After a week after we have changed the wikipedia page of Mongolia, I visited that page again and saw that the administrator changed it back. The popullation of Mongolia is changed back into:

Population
- December 2009 estimate
2 736 800[3] (140th)
- 2000 census
2,407,500[4]

I do live in Mongolia and from the News (media) I know that Mongolia's popullation was had reached over 3 million at the beginning of 2009. Basing on the research made by our group at CIA World Factbook, the estimate was around 3, 100, 000; however the estimate was done June 2009. I do agree that administrators have a duty to keep the pages updated using the latest information. And I do understand that it was the reason they changed it back. I do believe that WORLD FACTBOOK is one of the most accurate sources around the world. Does that mean that MOngolia's popullation got decreased by almost 300,000 in only 6 months? That does not look like a reasonable information.

Then I looked over the source of the information, which admistrators used. And it was Mongolian National Statistical Office document. I will not argue, it is more accurate than the World Factbook HOWEVER IT WAS DONE IN 2002. AND THE ESTIMATE DECEMBER 2009 was not a proven information. IT WAS A PREDICTION of popullation growth. So I am thinking why didn't wikipedia administrators use common sense? Why are they changing REAL SOLID INFORMATION into a HYPOTHESIS, which was made like 8 years ago.

Investigation - WIKIALITY

So we have just started a NEW UNIT!!! Its about Wikiality. Basing on the Learner's Profile, Principled links to this unit because of the fact that it is about principles of moral reasoning, incorporating integrity, honesty and a sense of fairness and justice and respect for the dignity of the individual. Since wiki page is a website where anyone can write/post whatever they want to even by adjusting the original version. Since, there are no special written rules for writing on Wikipage, and indeed if there are no serious penalties; anyone writes whatever they want. It just gives too much freedom without any responsibilities afterwards; that is why people tend to use wikipage to make fun of things, to destroy what is in there.
From the Areas of Interaction, it related to Health and Social Education. It is because we are actually entering or adjust someone else's world or statement meaning there are disrespect going one way or the other. To mention one of the wiki websites that are used worldwide are:
http://www.wikipedia.org/

Day 1
So as the beginining of this unit, we tried to make our own wiki page and see the consequences from that. Well, in order to create a wiki page, we create an account for free, then we create this page to post the article we want. From my previous project, I took a script and posted it while working in pairs with Sonya, one of my fellow classmates. It was very easy to create a wiki page, it did not even take a minute. It was that easy that it actually allows this opportuinity of everyone can create their wiki page.
Well, after creating our own brand new wikipages, we had to look over the other student's blog and then try to either edit their page or make comments. Well, naturally I like having fun as well as sometimes I am evil. So while I was looking over other people's wiki page, i actually edited a lot rather than making comments. Most of them time, I wrote the opposite of what the author meant. But I did not delete the whole article, which I could have, because I did not want to be too mean. Others were adjusting my script as well. After looking over all the other wikipages of my classmates I went back to my own wikipage http://usit.pbworks.com/
From the very beginning, Sonya and me posted our script on this special page, not on the front page. So some of the visitors could not find our post, instead they saw the blank front page and edited it with their own ideas. They wrote such things:
"Where is your post??? HUH? Your mom's breath stinks and etc..."
I knew it was not offensive to me as well as the editor did not mean it. However, it felt bad. Then when I went to the podcast page, where our script was posted, I found out that someone had already edited it.
The script was so different. Even though, when you look at it, it looks just the same. There were only a few words changed so that it made the whole content the opposite of what I meant. That was what I did to other people's post. It was funny to see a total different story, though the original one was what I wrote. Well, I wanted to post the original version of my script but there was no way other than editing it again. There are no ways to go back to the original script on the wikipage.

Wikis can be used for:
- reseources
- advertisement
- survey
- support group
- debate

Research about Wikipedia

Basically, Wikipedia gets its information from the people, who use it. There are more than 85,000 active contributors working on more than 14,000,000 articles in more than 260 languages. Every day thousands and thousands of people editing and posting information on wikipedia sharing their knowledge with the rest of the world. Because wiki pages can be edited by anyone at any time, there has to be someone in charge or deciding what goes into an article and what gets removed from an article. The administators all around the world, or the who care about wikipedia and its principles. Administrators are in charge of the content of the information on wiki pages. There are specific criterion related to the value of the text. Administrators are allowed to edit and delete the pages, block usernames,and lock the information. There are administrators, and then they are less powerful than bureaucrats, who makes decisions such as accepting them to become administrators or blocking their account. Then there is a supreme court of Arbitration Committee that only experienced administrators are allowed to be in.

I think wikipedia is a reliable source, though in order to have solid information it is better to have backed up plans. Eventhough there are thousands of people trying to have fun by corrupting wikipedia pages; there are the same amount of administrators around the world.

I would know whether a particular article really is accurate by researching more from other reliable sources which are sponsored by the government or special world wide known organisations.

There can be various of methods of finding inaccuracies on Wikipedia:

1. Research the topic of the article title
2. Compare answers and see which one has the most common answer
3. Verify/find out if there is anything that does not correspond
4. If there is something that corresponds, verify the validity of your research source
5. If your research/ resources is valid, then the wikipedia entry has an error or inaccuracy

Criterion B - Design

Our group worked very hard to find inaccuracies on Wikipedia. So we came up with special plans such as starting up with some information we learnt in the past. Even though, before we all believed that wikipedia was not a reliable source and indeed some of us actually avoided using it; it was a difficult duty to find mistakes. There are millions and millions of pages created; however there was no guarantee to know which page has mistakes and which not. Then on the other hand side, we as students, are not very educated indeed. There is nothing that we actually know for sure among others. Although, while I was creating the test I felt like the steps were easy; but for further way, I realised it was not as smooth as I have expected it to be. So we talked about searching for information about our country or culture, because that is what we know the most. I was working with Jiri, so we looked over Czech Republic and Mongolia, and very specific information like GER. We decided to edit Mongolia’s population, which was either old or inaccurate.

This is the page we have edited:

"Mongolia." Wikipedia. Wikipedia, Web. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolia.

On this page, we particularly edited the population estimate of 2009. Basing on the information on CIA world fact book the population of Mongolia was 3,041,142, while Wikipedia said it was around 2,700,000. The source for the CIA page is:

"Mongolia." CIA The World Factbook. Central Intelligence Agency, Web. 16 Feb 2010. .

Edited part of article

Population

- July 2009 estimate 3,041,142 [3] (140th) [it was around 2,700,000 before]

- 2000 census 2,407,500[4]

- Density 1.75/km2 (236th)5.03/sq mi

Design specifications:

- Information from reliable source

- Edited properly

- Cited properly