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.