The original article was very brief but comprehensive. It provided a broad, general explanation of the life course approach and its origin but it lacked specific examples of how the concept is applied, where it can be applied, and why it is effective. I added material from my later life families textbook "Family Ties and Aging." I also added material from two other sources (academic journals) to expand ideas about the application of the life course theory and show how its use is effective and helpful in gaining understanding about a number of important topics. I hope that it offers a helpful range of detailed information that is easy to read and understand. Click here to see how it turned out.
I have never edited a Wikipedia stub before so all the formatting was brand new. I found some of it a little intimidating and, although I cited my sources as best as I know how, I found myself triple checking my citations and reference list to make sure I gave credit where credit was due, not wanting to violate any copyright restrictions and other errors that would make my information unreliable. I was surprised at how easy it was to actually get "published" on Wikipedia. If I can easily access and put something up for the public to read, it makes me wonder who else posts on Wikipedia, and if they are researching their information, citing, and providing accurate and credible information. Because of this I can understand the reason why professors warn students time and time again to avoid using Wikipedia as a reliable source for information. Having said this, though, I definitely appreciate the sheer volume of topics for which Wikipedia is able to provide information. The diversity of authors can provide many different perspectives and concepts. There is a reason it is so popular and many of us still use it- at least to get the general idea of something.
Two other blogs that have examples of edited Wikipedia stubs are:
Great post! I agree with you about how surprisingly easy it is to make edits on Wikipedia. Having seen many "vandal" posts on blog comments etc., it is troubling to think that those people have such easy access to Wikipedia. Thanks for the insightful post!
ReplyDeleteI agree with you 100 percent on triple checking of the sources for when editing on wikipedia, since it is so easy to post anything I wanted to make sure I was not giving someone credit where it needed to be given. I also had never edited anything on wikipedia before this assignment and it really made me think about all the diverse people submitting information on it and how credible everything can be, but overall it is a useful tool, but it does have to be taking with a grain of salt!
ReplyDelete