6816 - Wikipedia Analysis (Steps 4-7)

STEP FOUR:

Chose a Question/Answer:
Q17: Doesn't the climate vary even without human activity?
A17: Yes, climate varies both with and without humans. But the fact that natural variations occur doesn't mean that human-induced changes can't also occur and vice versa.

Web Page Evaluation Checklist

Name of page: Is human activity a substantial cause of Global Warming?

Address/URL: http://climatechange.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001445

Date Accessed: May 13 2013

How did you find the page? Google

DOMAIN

What is the domain of the page? .org

Do you feel that the domain type helps add to or lessen the page’s credibility? Yes

AUTHOR/AUTHORITY

Is the author of the page identified? Yes

Is the author of the page an individual? Yes - There are several

If the author is an individual:

Is the author clearly affiliated with a corporation, institution, organization or group? Yes - they all have PhDs and are active in this field

If so, does this affiliation lend credibility to the author? Yes

Are the author’s educational, occupational or other credentials identified? Yes

Is the author a professional in the field or a layperson interested in the subject? Yes

Does the author present any other evidence that supports his/her ability to accurately present the information that he/she is presenting? No

Does the author display any obvious bias (religious, political, commercial or other)? Yes - Some authors are pro and the others are the cons

Is the author the original creator of the information presented? Yes

If not, does the author acknowledge the sources of the information he/she is presenting? N/A


AUTHOR/AUTHORITY, cont.Does the author provide his/her contact information (usually an e-mail address) Yes

In conclusion, do you feel that the author is qualified to present the information found on his/her web page? Yes


INTENTIs the purpose of the page clearly stated? Yes

What is or appears to be the purpose of the page? To persuade you into thinking whether or not humans are the biggest reason for Global Warming

Does the page contain advertisements? Yes

Do the ads distract from the page’s content, affect the page’s reliability, or appear to be the main focus of the page? Might they be necessary to support the organization responsible for the page? They are not distracting - May be necessary

INTENDED AUDIENCE

Who appears to be the intended audience for this information/page? Adults who are undecided about Global Warming causes

Does the level or complexity of information provided, the vocabulary used, and the overall tone of the information/page match your needs? Some of the authors use huge words and it is hard to follow; however, some I could read just fine.

CURRENTNESS

When was the information on the page created or last updated? 2012

Are the dates of articles, news stories, newsletters, reports and other publications given? Yes

Is the page properly maintained or does it have broken links, outdated events calendars or other signs of neglect? Yes


RELIABILITY
Is the content peer-reviewed, authenticated by experts, or subject to some sort of editorial scrutiny? Yes

Does the page display any awards given by reliable sources, or link to favorable site reviews by reliable sources? Yes - for every author

Considering your answers to the previous questions, other observations you’ve made, and your overall sense of the page, how reliable does this source seem? I feel that this is a reliable source because even though it is biased, it is bias for both sides.

CONCLUSIONS

Do you feel that this source is appropriate for your current assignment or information need? Yes

Would you recommend this source to a friend doing similar research? Yes

What reservations, if any, do you have about the source? None

STEP FIVE:


What did you learn about issues related to global warming? How does Does reading this section influence you perception of Wikipedia as a resource for learning in school? Justify your stance using concrete examples.

I honestly learned more than I thought I would. I am not a huge fan on Global Warming - so it was a very uninteresting read for me. After reading this section; however, it made me realize that there are more things that they either said incorrectly - or they did not say at all.

For example - "The section states that the Arctic will be largely ice-free by 2037. There are, however, other estimates. In IPCC AR4, some models using the SRES A2 emissions scenario projected ice-free summers by the end of the 21st century [13]. According the UK Met Office, recent models project an early "plausible" date of 2025-2030 [14]"


For another example - The section should provide a summary of the literature on attribution, rather than focussing on individual studies. AR4 contains a number of attributions which aren't mentioned, including the contribution of anthropogenic forcing to sea level rise and loss of Arctic sea ice [15].


I think that as a source, knowing how many things were incorrect or 'bias' - I feel that using Wikipedia as a source - may not be such a good idea. I think that if my students would evaluate it like we did - maybe they would get more out of the information.

STEP SIX:

How does this information make you feel about the credibility and validity of information on Wikipedia.Justify your stance using concrete examples.

This information just made it even harder for me to decide whether or not we should use Wikipedia is schools. I can understand where NewsAndEventsGuy is coming from when he says


"Always assume its possible there's an ambiguity in the text that makes sense one way to you and makes equally good faith sense in a completely different way to someone else. Don't shoot back. When others try to make it personal remember that they are saying nothing about you and are instead telling the world they either lack discipline or else are consciously manipulating you to change the issue"


However, if students are getting information for a research paper - where there can be no bias - maybe Wikipedia would not be the best place for them to get information. They should simply use it as a guide or to get other sources.

STEP SEVEN:

How do think Wikipedia could be integrated into classroom activities?
Wikipedia can be integrated into classrooms by doing an assignment similar to this one. It can get the students to better understand the bias and all of the other 'stuff' in between.


What do you think about using Wikipedia as a source of information instead of textbooks? I know that textbooks can be very boring - however, I found reading this Wikipedia site boring. If I am interested in a topic - I can read it for days. If I am not, I feel there needs to be less writing, more pictures to show for a visual learner like myself, and more short - to the point - information.


Has your opinion changed? How? Why?
I have no idea what my opinion is. I used to think that it was okay to use Wikipedia - just don't site it (Opps!) But I now know that a lot of information can come from Wikipedia; however, some may be incorrect - or some can just be from the view points of one single author. We just need to make that information our own. I feel that Wikipedia can be used as a side tool, a 'resource-finder', and a way to teach students about the skepticism and bias on the internet. Also, I feel that we should be teaching our students how to find information as opposed to just reading one thing and BAM! they think they have found the correct answers.