1. Wikipedia-Wise You use it—so use it wisely! Click icon

2. Today’s Goals Understand the premise and purpose of Wikipedia Understand the strengths and limitations of Wikipedia Learn how to evaluate Wikipedia articles Practice

3. Wikipedia is & has a multilingual, Web-based, free-content encyclopedia project. written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world. Anyone with internet access can make changes to Wikipedia articles. 65 million visitors monthly as of 2009. 75,000 active contributors working on more than 13,000,000 articles in more than 260 languages. English Wikipedia right nowright now no advertising—all donations & grants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About

4. Strengths of Wikipedia Up-to-the-minute, often excellent coverage on topical events (unlike traditional paper encyclopedias). Wikipedia is self-correcting--errors to Wikipedia are usually corrected within seconds, rather than within months as it would be for a paper encyclopedia. Current affairs articles, as well as older articles being edited, are updated hundred of times an hour. Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy makes it an excellent place to gain a quick understanding of controversial topics. Censorship, or imposing "official" points of view is extremely difficult to achieve and almost always fails after a time. One of few sites on the web even attempting neutral, objective, encyclopedic coverage of popular culture.

5. and more Strengths… There are many non-Western writers, so has many topics not covered fully in other English encyclopedias. Anyone may ask questions of an article's authors. You can find interesting articles on some obscure town or a bizarre hobby written by actual residents and practitioners. People with a passion for a field or topic are those who contribute. Information in Wikipedia is hyperlinked, not linear (like a textbook).

6. It’s biggest strength… It is a good place to start research on a topic you know little or nothing about. Once evaluated for authoritativeness (we’ll get to that!) it will give you: Key names, dates Key words, events Links to primary sources Links to verifiable sources And then you can begin the research process.

7. Criticisms o Wikipedia's radical openness also means that any given article may be, at any given moment, in a bad state, such as in the middle of a large edit, or a controversial rewrite. o Notable criticisms include that its open nature makes it not authoritative and unreliable (see Reliability of Wikipedia).Reliability of Wikipedia o Obvious or subtle vandalism. o Susceptible to attempts by outsiders (or insiders) with an agenda to place a spin on articles. o Edit “wars.”

8. Who contributes what? Anyone–you do not need specialized qualifications to contribute—yet many professionals do contribute. However some articles are locked Articles cover existing knowledge, not original research. Most of the articles can be edited by anyone. As long as they do so within Wikipedia's editing policies and to an appropriate standard. Substandard or disputed information is subject to removal. Need not worry about accidentally damaging Wikipedia when adding or improving information, as other editors are always around to advise or correct obvious errors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About

9. Reliability Wikipedia, by its very nature, resists destructive edits. Wikipedia has 1,674 Administrators who are editors with access to restricted technical features ("tools") which help with maintenance. For example, administrators can protect and delete pages, block other editors, and undo these actions as well. They check each others’ work constantly. Assessing its reliability requires examining its ability to detect and rapidly remove false or misleading information. Rating system in place (you’ll see). There has been a gradual increase in using it in academia as a good starting point for research.

10. The reality? May contain false or debatable information. Many articles have much more verifiable, up-to-date, authoritative information than text encyclopedias. Many articles start their lives as partisan; and, after a long process of discussion, debate, and argument, they gradually take on a neutral point of view reached through consensus. Others may, for a while, become caught up in a heavily unbalanced viewpoint which can take some time — months perhaps — to achieve better balanced coverage of their subject. Facts should always be checked against many sources. Encyclopedias (any) are generally not cited for research.

11. The ideal article is well written is balanced is neutral is encyclopedic has comprehensive, notable, verifiable knowledge

12. Evaluating the Entries Discussion Tab What is it’s rating, if it has one? Are there discussions about the validity of the article? Are questions raised about the article? Does the article topic appear to be controversial or otherwise under debate? Not all articles are rated. See Hybrid VehiclesHybrid Vehicles History Tab Was the article recently created? When was it last edited? (older articles have likely been seen by more people). Have many people contributed to the article, or is the work of only one or two editors? Is there evidence of ongoing edit wars? Is there evidence of heavy or continued vandalism? (constant changes and reversions with edit summaries like “revert” or “rvv vandalism”). If so, check that you have a good version of the page. References, Notes, See also Are there any references and outside links? Are there citations to print sources as well as online sources? Are individual statements referenced with footnotes in the text? Quality Does the writing read well? Is the topic clearly explained? Are Wikipedia style conventions followed? (such as: is the article broken into sections; is there a clear introductory paragraph; are proper names and key concepts linked to other Wikipedia articles; is there any other formatting, such as images)

13. Featured ContentFeatured Content—The Best Featured articles Featured lists Featured pictures Featured sounds Featured portals Featured topics

14. Featured Articles “Featured articles are considered to be the best articles in Wikipedia, as determined by Wikipedia’s editors. Before being listed here, articles are reviewed at featured article candidates for accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style according to our featured article criteria.” Søren Kierkegaard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard Now we look at Discussion, History, References, Quality

15. Kierkegaard Top of Page Featured Article

16. Kierkegaard Discussion Tab

17. Kierkegaard History Tab Over 500 entries Today’s First entry

18. Kierkegaard References Source for books, articles, verify, further research

19. Kierkegaard Notes ! These are invaluable for furthering research—journals, books, academic websites (68 for this article) We will look at #6

20. Kierkegaard Note #6 Good academic article

21. Kierkegaard “Bibliography” & References Kierkegaard’s works discussed on Wikipedia

22. Kierkegaard’s See Also, Full Texts Broader & narrower terms MORE

23. Kierkegaard Bottom of Page Non-Wikipedia Online Resources Related articles put Kierkegaard in a time, place, school of thought

24. “Good” Articles Currently, of the 2,975,709 Wikipedia articles, about 7,118 are categorized as good articles (about 1 in 419). “Good articles are articles which are considered to be of good quality but which are not yet, or are unlikely to reach, featured article quality. Good articles should meet the good article criteria and have passed through the good article nomination process successfully. In short, they should be well written, factually accurate and verifiable, broad in coverage, neutral in point of view, stable, and illustrated, where possible, by relevant images with suitable copyright licenses. Good articles need not be as comprehensive as featured articles, but they should not omit any major facets of the topic.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_Article

25. Wikipedia “Good” Cinematic style of Abbas Kiarostami http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinematic_style_of_Abbas_Kiarostam see Discussion (D) see History (H) see References (R) see Quality Compare this with Akira Kurosawa article, rated C-classAkira Kurosawa Look at another “Good” entry: Kohlberg's stages of moral development

26. See Isaac Newton Can be read aloud! Formerly a FA (Featured Article) Why?

27. Evaluating unconsciousness Notice warning signs at top of article D, H, R, Q Fred Clarke Notice advisory with name D, H, R, Q

28. Now, your assignment Look up as many of the following keywords as you can Go to the Discussion tab—how is it rated? Return to the article, see Notes—are there good resources used to write the article (these are the endnotes or footnotes)? In the article, see References—can you find at least 5 articles or books that seem authoritative and might be useful for research? Would you use this article, or any of its Notes or References?

29. Select from this list! remember: Discussion, Notes, References Sandy Koufax Tourette syndrome Mosque Orion Sam Houston Frank Lloyd Wright Fighting in ice hockey Coldplay Final Fantasy MC Escher Golem Elvis Presley General Relativity Tropical cyclone Do the right thing (film) 2005 Texas Longhorns football

30. Finally, copyright Created by Kathy Fester, Shelton School & Evaluation Center, Dallas, TX. 972.774.1772. kfester@shelton.org. Last updated 10/1/09.kfester@shelton.org This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.