Criterion E - Evaluating our Wikiality project
March 30, 2008
Self Evaluation of Wikiality Group Project
I. Against our own design specifications: The first step of my design specification was to look for mistakes and outdated information and then correct them, or update them. The second stage was to research information from at least two (reliable) sources. This we did – we found an outdated article on Wikipedia about ISU and we used both the school’s official website and had personal interviews with some of the very knowledgeable staff of the school and gathered information. That’s two ticks right there. =)
My last step was to review the information from accuracy of information to grammar. This we did altogether – and all by ourselves too. Three/three checks. ^^
II. On each stage of the project:
A – Investigation – everyone in our group described the project and answered questions on it, and everyone described a method in finding inaccuracies on wikipedia. We found a wikipedia article on the school and that was our proof that our method worked! 
All of these things are also posted on our blog, 6/6 :))
B – Design – In our group we may not’ve achieved as much teamwork as there could’ve been, but we did make the corrections on the article, first in writing, then on the pc, and then posted it onto our blog. We also corrected it all using the strikethrough feature. We also found accurate sources because we used sources that came from our school itself, and our article was on ISU. 6/6
C – Create – We all had our responsibility agreements in (since we were able to go on wikipedia with the ISU username + password) and we had Mrs. Wilson to check our corrections together with the citations before that, on paper. We’ve spent time researching and we’ve spent time correcting the article as well as tried to keep our grammar as professional as possible, so hopefully not everything will get deleted from Wikipedia! 6/6
III.Whether or not our edits had been changed, why? I used the ‘history’ tab on the article to look for any changes they(other users) may’ve possibly made. Yes, some of our edits had been changed/deleted. Our citations edit had been removed and one spelling mistake (MINI!) was changed too.
Our personal interview citations were taken off because it was an original source; we had to have independent published sources. Thanks to the user that explained this to us when he/she took it off.
The spelling mistake we made was writing ’semsester’ instead of semester. This got corrected by another user too. Pretty amazing.
As a conclusion, I think wikipedia is more accurate than most people think, but this is not the same as to say it is fully accurate. There are always people patrolling and checking, and changing edits. I was shocked to find that another user actually found a spelling mistake; especially when it was a mistake of only 2 letters needing to be switched around. It shows how much detail (most of) the community pays attention to. In this case it is most probably true that the users had no clue what the article was about; but many of them do know proper grammar. This is efficient because one person could come along with the right information but the wrong grammar. Another person could change this grammar and there you have it; a reliable source. If I were to rate the community which Wikipedia is built up on, it would be an 8/10, for the knowledgeable users that are often actually volunteering; not employed/forced to work.
Some changes we could do to have better use of our time and be more efficient next time: Our main weakness was not working together as a team all at once; but some people doing this and others doing that. Yet we only had only 3 people, not a team of 50. We should’ve listened to each other more closely and recommended jobs for one another, but we were basically all crowled up around the PC with someone listening to music, another socialising, and only 1 person working at once. We needed a person to take over and get in charge, but we didn’t really do that. Maybe that’s why we were doing different things; we didn’t have a person that would go, you do this, you do that, even though we’re in 10th grade. Since we were all assigned only 1 computer, we did quite a bad job in teamwork on it. Also, most of the time it was usually the same person typing and basically doing the work; Jemima. We didn’t really know what to do so we wandered off. This shouldn’t have happened, and we have no real reason to not be engaging into teamwork. Maybe next time, we could create a plan, where every one is involved and everyone has something to do.
Criterion D Wikiality
March 30, 2008
For criterion D, all we really did was check over our edit to make sure it was ok, and then we gave it to Mrs. Wilson to confirm, and then edit wikipedia’s article. We got our edits right and our interview citations correct, but Mrs. Wilson told us to also add in the roles of our interviewees to make our chances of keeping our edits there longer. We all agreed so we made the change. When we were done, we took this information and editted Wikipedia’s article on ISU, under isutechnology. What the edit page looked like was scripting! Ahhhh. But luckily wasn’t html.
The link to the article is below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_School_of_Ulaanbaatar
Ms. Wilson, I was supposed to upload this on Thursday but instead of pushing publish I accidentally pressed save >.<, so today, I found the draft.
Wikiality, Criterion B: Design
March 16, 2008
Correcting an Inaccurate Wikipedia Article: International School of Ulaanbaatar
We found that the article on the International School of Ulaanbaatar, our school, is very much outdated. Therefore, we strive to make it more updated.
Note (may be quite very obvious already)
-
When something has double brackets around it like (( )), this means that it shouldn’t be included as a part of our edit.
-
[] should not be included either.
The article:
The International School of Ulaanbaatar in Ulan Bator, Mongolia, is a private, coeducational day school, which offers an educational program from preschool through grade 12 for students of all nationalities. Permission to run the School was granted by the Mongolian Ministry of Education in May 1992.
Contents |
Organization
The school is governed by a multi-national board which consists of individuals from the United Kingdom, the United States, Sweden, South Korea, and Mongolia, including representatives of parents and embassies. [The Board for the SY 2007-2008 is made up of citizens of the following countries: The United States, Mongolia and Germany.]
Curriculum
The program of study used is based upon model U.S. curricula, extended for international use. The teaching methodology stresses activity-based learning, and the children are encouraged to enjoy and participate in the investigation of all areas of study. The School offers a full range of subjects, including English, mathematics, science, environmental studies [ no environmental studies now], arts and crafts, music, physical education, French, Chinese, and Mongolian. Teaching materials are primarily from Britain and the United States and instruction is in English. Classes in English-as-a-Second-Language are provided for those children who require it. A community English program has also been established, teaching the basics of English language to local children on a part-time basis.
The school year is divided into 3 [2] terms that run from August/September to June.
Faculty
There are currently around 50 [60] staff members at International School of Ulaanbaatar.
Enrollment
At the beginning of the 2004-2005 school year, enrollment was 195 (N: 10, PS: 18, Kdg.-grade 5, 110, grades 6-8, 35, and grades 9-12: 22). In the school year 2007-2008, there are about 300 students (enrollees).
[((This is additional information which wikipedia would value too:)) In the school year 2007-2008, during the second semester of SY 2007-2008 the enrollment was 232.Class Enrollment Figures: Pre-K: 28 Kindergarten: 19 Grade 1: 19 Grade 2: 19 Grade 3: 21 Grade 4: 21 Grade 5: 10 Grade 6: 18 Grade 7: 19 Grade 8: 14 Grade 9: 14 Grade 10: 21 Grade 11: 19 Grade 12 : 7]
Facilities
The school facilities include 22 classrooms, 1 computer lab, 6 instructional computers, 1 auditorium, 2 covered play areas, 1 gymnasium, and 2 science labs. [ As of 2007, ISU moved into a purpose built campus at Four Seasons Garden. There are 21 classrooms, a computer lab equipped with 21 computers, 1 gymnasium, 1 cafeteria,and an outdoor play area. There are about 90 computers at the school.]
Finances
In the 2004-2005 school year, most of the School’s income derives from tuition. A number of scholarships have been provided to Mongolian students. [((Additional information))This was the only year since I.S.U’s discovery that the Mongolian students, including local students from different schools, were given scholarships. The US embassy were the supplier of these scholarships.]
Citations:
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., “International School of Ulaanbaatar.” Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia. 3 Feb 2008. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.. 11 Mar 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_School_of_Ulaanbaatar>.
International School of Ulaanbaatar, “OUR VISION: TO PROVIDE EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION.” The International School of Ulaanbaatar. 2006. International School of Ulaanbaatar. 11 Mar 2008 http://www.isumongolia.edu.mn/index.php.
Fischer, Deidre. Director. Personal Interview 14 March, 2008
Alridii, Tuul. Deputy Director-Business. Personal Interview. 18 March, 2008
Jamsran, Khaliunaa. Receptionist. Personal Interview. 18 March, 2008
Rentsenkhorloo, Onon. Administrative Assistant. Personal Interview. 18 March, 2008
Luvsantsengel, Tugsjargal. Accounts Manager. Personal Interview. 18 and 21 March, 2008
Three design specifications for our final Wikipedia article entry correction.
1. Discover the mistakes/outdated information within the ISU wikipedia page.
2. Research and find information from at least two reliable and updated sources for ISU.
3. Correct the mistakes, do a few reviews, make sure that they are accurate to the information researched.
Editing Wikipedia; Criterion A
March 10, 2008
Today we were on a lookout for wikipedia pages that needed editting. We followed Zaya and Jemima’s method, which is to find pages with information that we’re familiar with because that would require less research. We used the search box. We went on some pages like Bangladesh and Christianity and read a few things but then we came up with the idea of doing it on ISU, because it is more familiar to all members of our group, to our class, to our school! We found a few mistakes such as ISU’s supporters, the enrollment number, the staff number, etc. But the easiest inaccuracy we spotted was that it was somewhat outdated. We set out to do a few researches afterwards on the inaccuracies we suspected. We went on both the school’s official website as well as the school itself to check for further information. However, we did not edit the inaccuries on the wikipedia because Mrs. Wilson (you! heheh) would have to verify it first. =)) The ISU article could be found below, and the school’s official website is right below that.
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., “International School of Ulaanbaatar.” Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia. 3 Feb 2008. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.. 11 Mar 2008 . <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_School_of_Ulaanbaatar>.
International School of Ulaanbaatar, “OUR VISION: TO PROVIDE EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION.” The International School of Ulaanbaatar. 2006. International School of Ulaanbaatar. 11 Mar 2008 . <http://www.isumongolia.edu.mn/index.php>.
I don’t know how to site a school? >.>
Criterion A: Investigation for my Wikipedia project
March 5, 2008
Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia
What is wiki?
“A collaborative website whose content can be edited by anyone who has access to it.” - dictionary.com
Who creates them?
Anyone can create and edit articles on Wikipedia. They are the main source from which wikipedia gets its information, yes, just the common ordinary people that’s created one of the world’s most powerful information source.
Why use them?
These articles, although it can be edited by anyone, is often quite a reliable source of information because the people whom create false information are often discovered within minutes as thousands of wikipedia ‘patrollers’ (people whom check for grammar mistakes, wrong formating, lack of information, inaccurate information and sources, etc.). You can basically find everything on wikipedia. It is also from the common people, people that’ve experienced things, and this could be helpful a lot of times because most of these people offer the information up on wikipedia for others. Most of these people whom contribute to wikipedia are simply, unconditionally generous. They don’t just spend minutes, most spend hours to days to even months to help out!
Who edits them?
Anyone can edit them! However, spamming or adding in inaccurate information as a hobby on wikipedia can get you banned! Watch out! 
There would always be patrollers online. And there is always at least 5 people whom will be checking your contributions or “contributions”, as you can call it.
What is your task? Our main assignment revolves around wikipedia. We’ll be researching on how accurate it actually is and we ourselves will be editing it as well. We’re supposed to do a little research about it first and for this part of the overall assignment, and so far we’ve been answering some of the more basic questions that specifically relate to wikipedia’s accuracy and where it gets its source.
Why is it important for you to learn about Wikipedia?
It is always important to know how your source of information … gets its source! Because once you put it down on paper for school and your teacher goes and searches it up and finds inaccuracy, your hours of effort could as well be a waste of time. You’d get a low grade. And that’d highly be unfair, but in a way it would be your own fault because you it would mean that you had not done enough research. Wikipedia is a site where many people can edit articles at once, and these people are basically anyone who has access to the internet. It could be inaccurate although it is an overall reliable source for a read-up. Always remember to check your sources! In this case, quantity can mean inaccuracy. Check information on wikipedia against other websites or informative sources to gaurantee a better accurate level.
These questions were answered together in a group and then individually. My group is with Zaya and Jemima.
1. Where does Wikipedia get its information?
Wikipedia gets its information from various sources. These sources are people of different knowledge that are willing to contribute to (or spam!) Wikipedia. They are average citizens from around the world of a wide age range that have access to internet and Wikipedia, more notably.
2. Who is in charge of deciding what goes into an article and what gets removed from an article?
Ordinary people, anonymous on Wikipedia or other places or not, are the ones that decide what will be kept in an article. There is a specific link called ‘Recent Changes’ on Wikipedia that a registered user (or not) may examine recent edits to an article or a creation of a new article on Wikipedia. The recent changes link include a specific character count to show whether someone had taken away a lot of information on the article, added a lot of information, and or deleted and added information. Users or non users that check the recent changes made on Wikipedia are often called ‘patrollers’ or the guardians of Wikipedia. They are given the new change with the comparison of the old one side by side. They may decide to keep this change by approving or disapproving. If they disapprove, they may edit the article themselves or simply reverse it to the previous changes made on the article.
3. If there is some debate about whether a particular bit of information should or should not be included in an article, what is the process for deciding?
When there is a debate on whether a particular bit of information shall be included or not, merged or not, or a whole article should be deleted, people could(should) contribute to the article’s discussion page. When a decision is made, the case is often an administrator/employee/very loyal, praised + recognized member whom will carry out the final task. A discussion usually comes into bloom when a notice(or somewhere along those lines) or so is made on an article. For example, someone can come along and read an article and thought it was inaccurate. This person could decide to edit the article himself or herself, or simply add in a sort of bannerish notice (that is already made by the website, people whom do this would often know exactly what its code was+/where the code is to add it) that says something like, ‘this article is inaccurate. Please edit it and remove this notice or refer to the discussion page’. These notices are often at the top of an article. In another case, one person could read two articles and thought they were too similar that they should be made into one article. This person could add a notice which says that they think the article should be merged with the other article (they have to give the specific article name + link too). Then people could discuss whether it should be merged or not and the reasons for it.
I used to spend a lot of time on wikihow.com, and the system there and on Wikipedia are very similar. This is what I learnt through my experiences on wikihow as a user ^^. (P.S. You are able to have your own personal information added to this site too, but only on your userpage. Administrators could ban you if you get inappropriate, however. Also, people who create a username are often those that want to be recognized for their efforts ! :P:P^^. They’re usually people whom uses these sources often or are able to contribute to them often. You get contribution counts! And even a little reward(compliment + encouragement, most of the time heheh) from the more recognized users too when they can see your efforts!
There is still 3 more questions that we have to answer. However, we would have to first watch a clip before we can answer it all.
I’m doing this on my own as my group have done it already when I was absent. I just don’t want to take information from others and not put efforts into it… that’s all.
How reliable do you think Wikipedia actually is?
I think Wikipedia could be very accurate most of the time if not all of the time. Wikipedia does not just let anyone do anything they want on the site. Wikipedia has specific guidelines for its contributers; how to write a wikipedia article, how to patrol, how to make an article interesting, etc. These people would also have to cite their sources and even when they do, they would have to follow a specific guideline for them as well. It is easy for patrollers to identify and point out inaccurate or lacking information. In addition, readers have an option to vote whether an article is ‘accurate’ or ‘inaccurate’. Although not every reader of the website does this, still a lot of people do it and this also helps for a better accuracy level on an article. Most contributers are able to use this information to better the article.
How would you know whether a particular article really is accurate?
You could look at how many sources used and how many edits the article had, and even look into those sources for more information too. Another way as well is to look at how old the article is and when it was last editted. Sometimes quantity and time can help a lot in determining this because the longer it has been on wikipedia means the more people have a chance to read it and the more people could also mean the more chance for someone to find a contradition. Always remember to check twice on ‘hot’ topic information such as politics and religion however, because they are often highly opinionated.
How would you go about discovering whether an article contains inaccurate information?
One of the easiest ways to do this is to go to one of the categories where patrollers have recommended articles needing upgrades. On wikipedia’s main page, there is a link that says ‘Community Portal’, on that page there’s a box titled ‘Fix-up projects’. There, there would be articles that need attention. This is where the contributors that are well informed on a speciic category or categories can come in and contribute.
Together create a method of finding inaccuracies on Wikipedia:
Step 1: Find an inaccurate article through the ‘Community Portal’ page. Find a category we’re well informed in so we could better judge inaccuracies when we see them, otherwise we’d have to gather completely new knowledge… which takes time… :P.
Step 2: Check the suspected inaccuracy with at least 2 other sources.
Step 3: Before editting, have each group member check it over once again; that’d be + 3 reviews.
Step 4: Edit the article, but before doing so, ask for teacher’s permission.
