User:Jreeves726/sandbox

Wikipedia Evaluation Credibility has many types. some of the types credibility i found in the article is scientific credibility, which is the extent to which science is recognized as a source of reliable information about the world. other types of credibility are street credibility and journalistic credibility. the article says that credibility has two main components, which are trustworthiness and expertise which both have objective and subjective components. the article seems to have reliable links and references to things that further back its facts. the contents section takes you to each headers own section with even more links and references inside of the section. the information comes from other wikipedia users that use links and references to other wikipedia users facts with even more references and links. it seems that the most reliable wikipedia articles have links that take you to more and more articles with reliable links and references made by other wikipedia users. in the Talk section, there is a user who announces that he made a small change to the external link of credibility and if anyone had any questions to his changes to feel free to visit his FaQ for answers. the gesture looks like proper formal wikipedia etiquette from reliable wikipedia users.

I chose the essay Wikipedia as a Tool for 21st century teaching and learning to read. the essay in summary is about the misconception of wikipedia, and how we can better use it as a learning tool to further our learning. the article states that many school from k-12 have banned the use of wikipedia due to its reputation for being unreliable and having false information on its website that just about anyone can go on and edit themselves. the article is aimed to clarify exactly what wikipedia is, and how we can benefit from learning how to use It properly. something that I didn't know is how wikipedia actually works. growing up, like many kids, I was steered away from using wikipedia for any class assignments in high school and in middle school. after taking the training courses last week and reading this article I'm more aware that even though some information isn't reliable on wikipedia, I'm more suited to identify what is or isn't reliable based on using the references, links, and talk pages. and by being a good wikipedia user, if I do spot false information, I now hold to the power to change it and make it as accurate as information as possible,

the policy I chose to read is No Original Research upon reading this policy, what surprised me is that I, as a wikipedia user, cannot post original research. meaning if I discover something with no credible research to back it up I cannot post it on wikipedia. this is sort of conflicting to me as I don't believe that I shouldn't be able to use research and data to post something that doesn't have any other research attached to it. I understand the policy as It keeps people from posting things without any credible evidence but I believe it can hinder people who have discovered something no one else has and would like to use wikipedia as a grounds to make it public. if I had to summarize this guideline with one sentence I would say that it is conflicting but necessary.