Wikipedia Vs. Textbooks

Three important ideas/things from the video today are that volunteers work for Wikipedia making sure everyone follows the rules, Wikipedia is not a place that allows contributors to share opinions, and many people can help add facts to this website, but the most important thing I leaned today is that it is hard for books that have been made months or years ago to keep up; that is why Wikipedia helps.  

After reading both Wounded Knee Massacre from textbook and Wounded Knee Massacre from Wikipedia I saw many similarities and differences. For example, in the textbook it explains how the armies "feared" that the Indians were planning war. The armies could have been worried and probably were, but that is not a fact unless they have proof. In Wikipedia they do not explain how the Indians and soldiers were feeling, in fact they explain that there is more than one version of this story. Another example is that Wikipedia using a lot of numbers, of exactly how many men, women, and children were apparently killed. Which the textbook does not state exact numbers. Although Wikipedia explains more of the story, both sources have the same idea. They both explain the main facts that people were killed, and who was that was battling each other. 

Wikipedia is trying to improve accuracy of the articles, as well as improving diversity on their articles. For example, they are seeking facts and information from people who's cultures the article is about. I believe that because they are making an effort to find individuals who are from and know a lot about the certain topic majority of the information is true. The facts in the Wounded Knee Massacre article was probably received from people who are related to the one's that were there during the massacre, whose stories were passed down. The article did have a lot of facts that the textbook did not. Although Wikipedia is trying to find people with the true facts of what happened at the time, stories do change over time. They have to make sure to provide reliable sources.  

Volunteers are discussing the topic of Medals of Honor during the Wounded Knee Massacre. They show what people had posted on the article and why they thought it was necessary to take it off. For example, someone commented the fact that Gettysburg had more Medals of Honor than Wounded Knee Massacre (which is true), but the amount they said was not true and did not have a source to back it up. 

After reviewing some of the volunteers profiles for Wikipedia I am unsure whether they should be the ones applying facts. The user Sdgjake seemed to have knowledge in areas that could be useful for others. He shares the degrees he has obtained and tells the information that he likes to give viewers facts about. However, Piratedan seems to be funny and entertaining, he also shares the degrees he has. But, he does not share what he is specifically good at or what he could help users learn. User V8m8i only shares that they are in the military, nothing else. I believe that volunteers on Wikipedia should only provide help to articles they specifically are good at or major in.

Going to the talk pages on each of these profiles it shows that Wikipedia tries it's best to only allow facts on their website. They ask each individual for sources when they provide information or a picture. They do this to make sure that they are really providing true information. Also if Wikipedia finds facts that are not true the volunteers are asked to take their posts down and delete it. After seeing this it actually helps me feel better about using Wikipedia.

Reading the whole article on Wikipedia of the Wounded Knee Massacre provides individuals with a lot of information. They use numbers to provide readers with how many people were affected, exact dates, names, and quotes. They also give information of what happened before and after this event to give the reader an idea of why it happened and what happened afterwards. I believe the article appears to be neutral, because it strictly is giving facts. It does say how the people at the time were feeling, but not how the writers personally feel about the events. If the author were to use statements like "the Indians did not deserve that" then the article would have appeared biased to me. But they appear to be neutral when saying "In the years prior to the conflict, the U.S. government had continued to seize the Lakota's land." they could have stated that a lot harsher if they were in favor of the Indians. 

"Wikipedia in recent years has become a more trusted source of information"
"Bing uses Wikipedia’s article for its Ebola summary."
"Only registered Wikipedia editors with at least some experience are permitted to edit the page, and the requirement for sourcing is much more rigorous than for other Wikipedia entries. Newspaper articles, for example, do not cut it."

Wikipedia is a good way to help educate students and many other individuals. Some peopel try there best to find text books that are fun for students. For example, "I signed on as an editor at a major publisher of elementary school and high school textbooks, filled with the idealistic belief that I'd be working with equally idealistic authors to create books that would excite teachers and fill young minds with Big Ideas. Not so." Although there are fun learning story books for children, text books for class usually bore students. Geoff Ruth states "While some textbooks are excellent, most bore my students and frustrate me."  Wikipedia is loaded with useful information, you can find facts on anything! This website can even help with health care. An example is, “Wikipedia is a do-ocracy,” said Dr. James Heilman, an emergency room doctor from British Columbia, Canada, who leads the Wikiproject Medicine that keeps close watch on the most important public health articles, like Ebola Virus Disease."