Wikiality Criterion E

Our design specifications were:
-Must contain accurate and valid information
-Must properly cite the resource
-Make sure there are no spelling and grammar mistakes

There is not much to talk about with the design specifications because we only changed a number so the spelling and grammar mistakes are out of the question. However, we do believe that we provided accurate and valid information from a good source and cited it properly. I think we were successful according to our design specification.



Criterion A

As usual, Investigation was the hardest and required the most work. It was alot of fun in the beginning when we started using the PBworks website where we changed and commented on other people's wikis, and we got a good laugh out of it. Then we had to describe our process, how it felt when people changed our wikis and stuff and I believe I explained well on all the questions. The next part of investigation was much harder; where we had do some research about Wikipedia. Some questions we had to answer were tough and required more time and research than the others but Badmaa and I managed to complete it. We did a reasonable job but one thing we shouldve done was to research from a number of sources to broaden our research. After that we created a method to find a fault on Wikipedia. The method we came up with was doable, but the chance of finding an obvious fault was so little it would take a lot of time to actually find one. We found a fault without following our method; Badmaa said she knew a fault somewhere she did research on her French assignment. When we went to the page, luckily the false information was still there. We were so happy because we took almost 2 classes before trying to find inaccurate information.

Criterion B

The first part of Deisgn was really similar to Investigation where we had to find to inaccurate information on Wikipedia, post it on our blogs, highlighting the corrected information. Since we already did that we skipped this part. The only thing we had to do was to come up with a few design specifications. The ones we came up with were simple yet important. The first one was that it must contain accurate and valid information. That was easy because we had found a good source (GMAnews). The second specification was to properly cite the resource. That was also successful; there was a link created [77] that directed to the website we got the information. And lastly was to make sure there are no spelling and grammar mistakes. This one was not possible to be considered because we only changed a number, so no grammar or spelling mistakes can be found. I believe we did a good job on design.

Criterion D

After everything, we signed the Wikipedia Responsibilty Agreement and went straight to Wikipeda to change the false information. At first we spent some time trying to figure out where we were supposed to change our information and where to cite our resource. After a while, we managed to cite it properly and edited the information we were looking for. I dont think there is much to improve because it was a really easy task and we accomplished it.

Overall this project was a success and I am happy with what we have done. This project gave me insight about the 'web world' and how many people dedicate their lives to Wikipedia. I was suprised to know that there are people who constantly monitor Wikipedia pages. The first thing that came to my head was 'get a life'. Anyways, ive learnt alot about how wikis work , what a wiki even is and how people try to provide us with the most accurate information.