User:MMMcS/sandbox

The article I chose that's relevant to our course is "Research"

These are the questions from my Prof. that I've attempted to answer as I read and evaluate it:

• Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic?
  • Yes. It refers to the definition of Wikipedia itself (an encyclopedia) rather than a place for new ideas (i.e. "no new research"). This is not relevant to the topic of research per se. It is relevant to Wikipedia itself.
• Is there anything that distracted you?
  • I don't care for the phrase "stock of knowledge" in the definition of research. I think of a "stock" as something that is be used/consumed and then is depleted (I don't see bodies of knowledge that way.) so using the word in this way doesn't fit my thinking.
  • I don't like the phrase "several forms of research" followed by a long (more than several!) list of inconsistently selected areas. This sentence could benefit from the using an existing system of classification like Dewey Decimal with its 10 classes. Yes, I did just look this up on Wikipedia! ; )
• Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • I find the self-references biased.
  • We learned in class that their are two types in of research: basic and applied. The article seems disorganized in presenting this top-level idea about research. It jumps into very specific types. For example, tt doesn't address social justice research (as we read about in Creswell).

• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • Only Russia has a section on Professionalism. I would look to see if there are other countries or industries that have specific structures. It could be improved.
• Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
  • Citation 3 could be improved. I went to the OED and confirmed 1577 as the first use of the term. The cite button doesn't offer APA (I wonder if it's not used in GB?). I need to learn what format Wikipedia uses for citations, but the Chicago format is:

"research, n.1". OED Online. June 2017. Oxford University Press. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/163432?rskey=XHZQxX&result=1&isAdvanced=false (accessed September 16, 2017).

• Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference
  • There are quite a few so I will just spot-check:
    • Citation 7 is a book; we learned they are not peer-reviewed. This could be removed since there is already another citation.

• Where does the information come from?
• Are these neutral sources?
• If biased, is that bias noted?
• Is any information out of date?
• Is anything missing that could be added?
• Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
• How is the article rated?
• Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Great review of Research, @MMMsC:! FULBERT (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

A study was conducted to test the effectiveness of plagiarism detection software in a higher education setting. One part of the study assigned one group of students to write a paper. These students were first educated about plagiarism and informed that their work was to be run through a plagiarism detection system. A second group of students was assigned to write a paper without any information about plagiarism. The researchers expected to find lower rates in group one but found roughly the same rates of plagiarism in both groups.^[1]

This looks great! Can you provide a link to the article where you will add this and then let me know when it is added? FULBERT (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)